Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Grondar · 01-25-2004, 03:10 PM

Hi there.

I don't know much, but I know a little.. Here's what I know.

In the past (and generally), players are rated on a scale from 50-100. 50 is terrible, 100 is superb.

In NBA Live, from what I understand and have read, players are rated on a scale from 0-100. So a player rated 50, isn't nearly as bad as he is in other ratings systems.

Furthermore, players like Mike Bibby, may be rated low, but they are still "good players." They just play like their real life counterparts, and that may result in their ratings taking a hit.

For instance, someone that is a great assist man and has a great "vision" may only be rated 70ish in the game. However, they are still a great assist man, and a good passer in the game. They have intangibles that aren't expressed through their numerical ratings.

On the other hand, a player like Tim Duncan that is a "total package" will have a much higher numberical rating, because he excels in so many areas. He is a different player than the 75 OVR presented above, but he may not be as good at the same role that the 75'er is.

Lastly, since the ratings are done on a much broader scale (1-100), players aren't as "bad" as their ratings may show.

To me, it came down to players playing up to their real-life roles, and while that may result in a lower overall rating, it also results in a more realistic game. Because Mike Bibby isn't the same overall player that Tim Duncan is. Duncan is a great "overall" player, but he might not be as good at assists and finding the open man. Therefore, Bibby is rated appropriately, and isn't as highly rated overall.

To me this is realistic, but is also an adjustment.

I used Mike Bibby because he is the one player that stood out for me ratings-wise when I was playing the game.

Take care.

01-25-2004, 03:10 PM	#2 (permalink)
Grondar Junkie Location: Pa, USA	Hi there. I don't know much, but I know a little.. Here's what I know. In the past (and generally), players are rated on a scale from 50-100. 50 is terrible, 100 is superb. In NBA Live, from what I understand and have read, players are rated on a scale from 0-100. So a player rated 50, isn't nearly as bad as he is in other ratings systems. Furthermore, players like Mike Bibby, may be rated low, but they are still "good players." They just play like their real life counterparts, and that may result in their ratings taking a hit. For instance, someone that is a great assist man and has a great "vision" may only be rated 70ish in the game. However, they are still a great assist man, and a good passer in the game. They have intangibles that aren't expressed through their numerical ratings. On the other hand, a player like Tim Duncan that is a "total package" will have a much higher numberical rating, because he excels in so many areas. He is a different player than the 75 OVR presented above, but he may not be as good at the same role that the 75'er is. Lastly, since the ratings are done on a much broader scale (1-100), players aren't as "bad" as their ratings may show. To me, it came down to players playing up to their real-life roles, and while that may result in a lower overall rating, it also results in a more realistic game. Because Mike Bibby isn't the same overall player that Tim Duncan is. Duncan is a great "overall" player, but he might not be as good at assists and finding the open man. Therefore, Bibby is rated appropriately, and isn't as highly rated overall. To me this is realistic, but is also an adjustment. I used Mike Bibby because he is the one player that stood out for me ratings-wise when I was playing the game. Take care. __________________ "Yes, I rather like this God fellow. He's very theatrical, you know, a pestilence here, a plague there. Omnipotence. Gotta get me some of that." -Stewie