Revamping NBA Rating System
Fri Oct 24, 2003 1:50 am
This is how I would like the ratings to be.
RATINGS
Athleticism – This is like having a style rating. This goes in conjunction with other ratings. Example: Kobe Bryant’s rating would be high. And that means when he has to adjust his shot he would be more likely to make it as oppose to Glen Rice who would miss 9 times out 10 if he had to adjust his shot. Kobe would only miss 6 out of 10.
Hands – This means they miss more passes, no matter how good your passer is. If you had a team of players with bad hand but are good passers then it would kind of even it self out. Good hands and passing means more alley-oops ala New Jersey.
Post – This goes towards his moves in the post. It determines if he can do a drop step without losing the ball. A player with low rating will not be able to do a lot of the fakes or moves. They would be limited to a hook shot ala Chris Dudley.
Strength – This could stay the same.
Jump – This could stay the same. With one change, all tall players should not have high Jump ratings.
Speed – This could stay the same.
Quickness – This will determines how quickly a player does his moves and how fast he is off the dribble. I do believe that's the way it is now.
Field Goal (2-Pointer) – This section is from 7 feet to the 3-point line. This is a rating for jump shooters. This is Richard Hamilton would get his value from. The only change would be just because a player is a good 3-pt shooter that doesn’t mean his FG rating should be high.
3-Pointer – This could stay the same.
Inside Scoring – This should be no farther the 7 feet from the basket. Example: Shaq’s Inside Scoring rating would be high while his FG would be low.
Dunk – This would stay the same. With a high Athleticism rating you would get a better variety of dunks.
Dribble – This would stay the same. With a high Athleticism rating you would get a better variety of crossovers.
Passing – This would stay the same. With a high Athleticism rating you would get a better variety of behind the back passes and alley oops.
Range – This would stay the same.
Off. Rebound – This would stay the same.
Off. Awareness – This would stay the same.
Steals – This would stay the same.
Blocks – This would stay the same.
Def. Rebound – This would stay the same. It would also go towards their ability to box out.
Def. Awareness – This would stay the same. It goes towards how often player fouls someone.
Endurance – This would stay the same.
Injury – This would stay the same. Just more in game injuries.
Clutch – They need this rating back in the game.
Consistence – This would only be useful for in the franchise play. This would determine if a player plays well night in night out. Is he Kobe or Cuttino Mobley?
Stamina - This would only be in use for the franchise play. It would determine his endurance over the length of the season. If you play a person 42 minutes a night at the beginning of the season will he have the energy at the end of the season for the playoffs?
This is how I would do the ratings.
RATINGS
Athleticism – This is like having a style rating. This goes in conjunction with other ratings. Example: Kobe Bryant’s rating would be high. And that means when he has to adjust his shot he would be more likely to make it as oppose to Glen Rice who would miss 9 times out 10 if he had to adjust his shot. Kobe would only miss 6 out of 10.
Hands – This means they miss more passes, no matter how good your passer is. If you had a team of players with bad hand but are good passers then it would kind of even it self out. Good hands and passing means more alley-oops ala New Jersey.
Post – This goes towards his moves in the post. It determines if he can do a drop step without losing the ball. A player with low rating will not be able to do a lot of the fakes or moves. They would be limited to a hook shot ala Chris Dudley.
Strength – This could stay the same.
Jump – This could stay the same. With one change, all tall players should not have high Jump ratings.
Speed – This could stay the same.
Quickness – This will determines how quickly a player does his moves and how fast he is off the dribble. I do believe that's the way it is now.
Field Goal (2-Pointer) – This section is from 7 feet to the 3-point line. This is a rating for jump shooters. This is Richard Hamilton would get his value from. The only change would be just because a player is a good 3-pt shooter that doesn’t mean his FG rating should be high.
3-Pointer – This could stay the same.
Inside Scoring – This should be no farther the 7 feet from the basket. Example: Shaq’s Inside Scoring rating would be high while his FG would be low.
Dunk – This would stay the same. With a high Athleticism rating you would get a better variety of dunks.
Dribble – This would stay the same. With a high Athleticism rating you would get a better variety of crossovers.
Passing – This would stay the same. With a high Athleticism rating you would get a better variety of behind the back passes and alley oops.
Range – This would stay the same.
Off. Rebound – This would stay the same.
Off. Awareness – This would stay the same.
Steals – This would stay the same.
Blocks – This would stay the same.
Def. Rebound – This would stay the same. It would also go towards their ability to box out.
Def. Awareness – This would stay the same. It goes towards how often player fouls someone.
Endurance – This would stay the same.
Injury – This would stay the same. Just more in game injuries.
Clutch – They need this rating back in the game.
Consistence – This would only be useful for in the franchise play. This would determine if a player plays well night in night out. Is he Kobe or Cuttino Mobley?
Stamina - This would only be in use for the franchise play. It would determine his endurance over the length of the season. If you play a person 42 minutes a night at the beginning of the season will he have the energy at the end of the season for the playoffs?
This is how I would do the ratings.
Fri Oct 24, 2003 2:43 am
i'd like to see ratings like they got in Championship Manager...
0-20 on a lot of different ratings... it's realy awsome
+ there's no overall rating, which is a good thing...
0-20 on a lot of different ratings... it's realy awsome
+ there's no overall rating, which is a good thing...
Fri Oct 24, 2003 3:25 am
Yes, i agree... More ratings!
Dahl jag e från Sverige me
Dahl jag e från Sverige me
Fri Oct 24, 2003 3:35 am
- - -
tufft
då är det fyra av oss... (Jag, Slam harder, Sibo och du)
- - -
tufft
då är det fyra av oss... (Jag, Slam harder, Sibo och du)
- - -
Fri Oct 24, 2003 1:17 pm
I really like the suggestions about the new rating system. It would be more effective and closer to realism in gameplay. Nice work
Re: Revamping NBA Rating System
Fri Oct 24, 2003 4:03 pm
SuperFlash wrote:This is how I would like the ratings to be.
Injury – This would stay the same. Just more in game injuries.
Clutch – They need this rating back in the game.
Consistence – This would only be useful for in the franchise play. This would determine if a player plays well night in night out. Is he Kobe or Cuttino Mobley?
.
couldnt agree more
Fri Oct 24, 2003 8:21 pm
About injuries... I don't know how it is in NBA Live, but in NHL 2004 there are basically no other injuries then the common flu when you play dynasty mode. I haven't seen any ingame injuries, but this is atleast some what different in NBA...
But to my point: There are no training injuries are there? I mean players don't only get injured in games... So I'd like to see training injuries cause they do happen. Although this would have to be implemented so that they would not happen too often.
Injury rating would be nice... And it would also be nice if the rating would be adjusted by how many games a player is able to play. Like if he can play all 82 games, it would mean that his injury rating would go up by a couple of points and injuries could lower it by severity. Common cold, and some mild ankle injuries etc. wouldn't lower it at all, but some serious knee injuries could really bring down the house like maybe make it drop by 10 points or something. This would enable a player to make a comeback from his injuries by eventually getting better...
While we are in the bussiness of talking about new ratings here are a couple of suggestions from me:
CONFIDENSE - Would be just that. Confidence would act like the "shape of the day" modifier. So that if your team wins a lot of games, well your players confidence would go up and they would play better. Personal successes would up this as well. So some guy could become a five game wonder with high confidense and then lull back into his old form. This would have to update game-to-game basis. Also injuries and failures in games and bad loosing streaks would effect this negatively...
CLUTCH - Is a must to have back... So you have to pick who you shoot the last shot with and not just with the best three point shooter. Why they ever took this out is a total mystery to all Live players...
INJURY - Would indeed cover the players overall health and thus making some players more durable then others. This would also effect a players gameplay and a frequently injured players would play the game with more patiently and not with a reckless abandon leaving bodies behind.
HAPPINESS - Some players are happy where they are and some are not... This would be something even the game could prompt you on. If a players happiness would drop too low the game would mark the man somehow to point out that he is not too happy. Maybe a smily face to show how happy a players is... That would be something new and cool. So you would see that taking Isiah Rider off the waivers list wasn't the best move you can make as a GM. I've always pined for this... I mean that there are some strange personalities in the game that others might not be too fond off and it effects the game. Basketball is a highly spiritual game and if the chemistry is all messed up you just can't win a game.
I want to see players gel together or fall apart. This would make for some more realistic deals. Like you could trade a young player for your veteran and thus "shafting" the AI only find out that you've been shafted instead... And you've got your self a real head case and a problem child that no one seems to be wanting him on board. Take Artest or Rasheed for example... They are great players, but in the end they take a lot of technicals and are thus less desirable then players of same statistical range.
Some info too on the fact that what they think is wrong with the team... So you could do the popular or the less popular move knowingly and not just guessing.
Also the trading block would be nice... That way you could see who's the AI willing to trade "easily". I mean not wanting all the stars from the sky for that one player.
This is enough, for now...
But to my point: There are no training injuries are there? I mean players don't only get injured in games... So I'd like to see training injuries cause they do happen. Although this would have to be implemented so that they would not happen too often.
Injury rating would be nice... And it would also be nice if the rating would be adjusted by how many games a player is able to play. Like if he can play all 82 games, it would mean that his injury rating would go up by a couple of points and injuries could lower it by severity. Common cold, and some mild ankle injuries etc. wouldn't lower it at all, but some serious knee injuries could really bring down the house like maybe make it drop by 10 points or something. This would enable a player to make a comeback from his injuries by eventually getting better...
While we are in the bussiness of talking about new ratings here are a couple of suggestions from me:
CONFIDENSE - Would be just that. Confidence would act like the "shape of the day" modifier. So that if your team wins a lot of games, well your players confidence would go up and they would play better. Personal successes would up this as well. So some guy could become a five game wonder with high confidense and then lull back into his old form. This would have to update game-to-game basis. Also injuries and failures in games and bad loosing streaks would effect this negatively...
CLUTCH - Is a must to have back... So you have to pick who you shoot the last shot with and not just with the best three point shooter. Why they ever took this out is a total mystery to all Live players...
INJURY - Would indeed cover the players overall health and thus making some players more durable then others. This would also effect a players gameplay and a frequently injured players would play the game with more patiently and not with a reckless abandon leaving bodies behind.
HAPPINESS - Some players are happy where they are and some are not... This would be something even the game could prompt you on. If a players happiness would drop too low the game would mark the man somehow to point out that he is not too happy. Maybe a smily face to show how happy a players is... That would be something new and cool. So you would see that taking Isiah Rider off the waivers list wasn't the best move you can make as a GM. I've always pined for this... I mean that there are some strange personalities in the game that others might not be too fond off and it effects the game. Basketball is a highly spiritual game and if the chemistry is all messed up you just can't win a game.
I want to see players gel together or fall apart. This would make for some more realistic deals. Like you could trade a young player for your veteran and thus "shafting" the AI only find out that you've been shafted instead... And you've got your self a real head case and a problem child that no one seems to be wanting him on board. Take Artest or Rasheed for example... They are great players, but in the end they take a lot of technicals and are thus less desirable then players of same statistical range.
Some info too on the fact that what they think is wrong with the team... So you could do the popular or the less popular move knowingly and not just guessing.
Also the trading block would be nice... That way you could see who's the AI willing to trade "easily". I mean not wanting all the stars from the sky for that one player.
This is enough, for now...
Fri Oct 24, 2003 10:42 pm
i like the confidence idea and the stamina idea.
It would make you think twice about playing your teams superstar for the full 48mins in a game u've got well in hand, since it might mean he'll be less effective in the must win game u're playing tomorrow (an example).
Happiness I agree with i guess, to an extent. It would be good for the trading AI aspect of the game. Like u can't just load your team up with superstars and expect everyone to be happy.
It would make you think twice about playing your teams superstar for the full 48mins in a game u've got well in hand, since it might mean he'll be less effective in the must win game u're playing tomorrow (an example).
Happiness I agree with i guess, to an extent. It would be good for the trading AI aspect of the game. Like u can't just load your team up with superstars and expect everyone to be happy.
Fri Oct 24, 2003 10:48 pm
Jowe wrote:Happiness I agree with i guess, to an extent. It would be good for the trading AI aspect of the game. Like u can't just load your team up with superstars and expect everyone to be happy.
This is exactly what I'm talking about... We'll see just how well does Jamison handle the bench job. He's still a young guy and he's always been a star in GS. Now he gets benched... It might be that there is some unhappiness brewing there.
Happiness and confidense would pretty much enable the AI too to add some randomness to the simulation process and thus have even a bench guy hitting 10 points every now and then rather then the 5 points in Live 2003...
BTW... How is the simulation engine? Any better? I'm still waiting for the PC release and the moment it gets to Finland.
Sat Oct 25, 2003 3:26 am
These are outstanding suggestions. Very important for the wishlist for next years Live.
Sat Oct 25, 2003 3:28 am
Yeah BayBay.....my last post was 69 
Sat Oct 25, 2003 12:05 pm
Your a loser
Sat Oct 25, 2003 1:19 pm
KABI wrote:Your a loser
you got a long way to go (36) before you get 69
Sat Oct 25, 2003 2:01 pm
Metsis In terms of gameplay...i've said it before and ill say it again...live 2004 is almost perfect. 
Everyone has their own tastes as to how the nba should be played...so once you adjust the sliders to your preference..you're bound to be happy with gameplay.
Also, players get physical injures (there is also a slider for this). It happens real time during games...but i haven't seen anyone be sick wit the flu.
Everyone has their own tastes as to how the nba should be played...so once you adjust the sliders to your preference..you're bound to be happy with gameplay.Also, players get physical injures (there is also a slider for this). It happens real time during games...but i haven't seen anyone be sick wit the flu.
Sat Oct 25, 2003 3:09 pm
I LUV DIS GAME!
Sat Nov 01, 2003 3:49 am
Yohance Bailey wrote:Metsis Also, players get physical injures (there is also a slider for this). It happens real time during games...but i haven't seen anyone be sick wit the flu.
My only problem with the injuries is that it takes a player to be fouled to get injuried. Why can't the have someone twist their ankle or knee while thier in the paint taking to grab a rebound or something.
But I happy they inserted injuries into the gameplay more.