Improve the Simulation Engine

Discussion about NBA Live 2004.

Improve the Simulation Engine

Postby Knickerbocker on Wed Nov 20, 2002 6:07 pm

IMPROVE SIMULATION ENGINE

• You can get players on your team with better ratings than guys like Rip Hamilton or even Todd MacCulloch, yet their simulated stats are ONLY slightly better than their bench stats… where is the logic in that?
• If a guy plays 8 minutes and averages 2 assists and 3 points, he should have close to 6-7 assists as a starter.
• The same principle applies to players with ratings over 80. Shouldn’t their stats reflect an increase in overall ratings? If I have a player with a rating of 87, shouldn’t he have stats close to comparable stars? There is no consistency later in the game, ie. Several years later. A common scenario is where we have stars with ratings over 80, yet their stats are only slightly better than their bench stats.
• If the stats do not work, the fundamental part of the simulation engine does not work. It seems like the only part of the game that has improved for PC since Live 2001 is gameplay.
Please look at 2 facts: (1) Notice the amount of people around the world that join Fantasy Basketball Leagues, (2) Notice the success of EA’s Total Club Manager 2003 and other simulation sports games. Why can’t Live at least emulate part of that sophistication?If the argument is to make Live into an arcade game then there are too many options out there on console and PC. Yet fans flock to Live because it was one of the first to incorporate realism and managerial control. The series seems to have veered away from that philosophy.
• I propose the following improvements:

a. Individual Player Ratings:

• These should have a direct relation to a player’s stats. Could there be a bracket system whereby ratings within a certain ratings bracket gets certain ppg, rpg and apg? This seems logical because currently the system doesn’t work out at all. Ever since 2001 the simulation has been a disappointment in regards to stats.
• This is important because most users base their trades and team development on this sole factor, it must be improved to enhance the overall experience.


b. Team Ratings:

• Very few users play 82 games plus all the playoff games. Most players simulate through the seasons. Yet the simulated results seldom reflect the quality of the players. In real life, team chemistry improves the team’s overall rating and making them better than others. For example, the Nets have been relatively the same and changed when Kidd joined. Detroit is not a Star Farm like Portland, and yet Detroit is more successful. Golden State and Atlanta have talent, yet they have floundered. The team rating is an integral part towards making the Live experience more realistic, more playable, and more fun. Again, if we want an arcade experience, we have lots of other choices.
• To tie in the team chemistry concept, each individual player should have a Chemistry Rating. The average score of all players on the team is the Team Morale Rating. The higher the rating, the more probable the team’s likelihood to win close games and playoff games (considering skill ratings are not too far apart).
• This rating can also make trades more interesting for users by having different effects on game play. High Chemistry Rating (CR) for PGs means more assists (Kidd & Andre Miler), low CR means less assists and possible a shoot first guy like Marbury or J Will. The same principle also applies to other positions, such that Webber would have a higher CR than Rasheed Wallace (because of fouls and assists). A good way would be to rate desirable qualities such as “go-to guy”, “locker-room leader”, “unselfish player” as high CR, and bad qualities such as “ball-hog”, “thug” and “locker-room poison” as low CR. Thus ranking players would be much easier.


c. Team Philosophy:

• Certain teams have different ideals and appeal that makes signing Free Agents easier, and certain teams have different playing styles that can transform them from basement dwellers to contenders.
• If each club has a Team Philosophy setting, it make the game more realistic and fun, especially when off-season comes and you have Jerry West and a big budget, versus Jerry Krause and a big budget.
• Game play - New York and Miami would espouse “Tough D”, whereas Dallas and LA Clippers would espouse “Run & Gun” tempo. Assigning a playing philosophy makes it more interesting because some users draft teams built to run, and some built for set-play. This makes simulation more realistic, and adds character.
• Such a change could be made by adding either real-life managers, or fantasy managers (possible users themselves!). Each new manager assigns a style and sees if players chemistry ratings mesh.


Please don't ignore this part of the game and think it's too much work. If the FIFA franchise can overhaul their ENTIRE game engine to improve game play from 2002 to 2003, NBA LIVE should be able to improve a sim engine in 1 year without having to skip from 2001 to 2003!!!
Knickerbocker
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Nov 20, 2002 5:58 pm

Postby Andrew on Wed Nov 20, 2002 7:11 pm

Good post Knickerbocker, I enjoyed reading it. I too would like to see improvements and additions made to Franchise Mode. With EA's focus on gameplay for Live 2003, perhaps Live 2004 will not only feature further improvements and adjustments to gameplay, but also to game modes as well.

The idea of team chemistry has been on the wishlist for a long time, though you have discussed it in a fair amount of detail. However, I would propose that team chemistry be an option that can be toggled, not for myself but for players who want to build an All-Star team, or just have a simplified Franchise Mode.

As for the chemistry rating, which is an interesting idea, do you think this would be a rating that would increase/decrease the same as other player ratings? If statistics are to affect player development, then I propose that the chemistry rating be similarly affected - if a player takes 40 shots a game in a season while averaging a minimal amount of assists, then his chemistry rating would decrease next season.

The Team Morale Rating - I would also suggest this should be affected by winning and losing streaks, blowout losses and blowout victories.

The only argument against implementing these features would probably be that it's a lot of ratings and figures to keep track of and take into consideration, when a lot of gamers want to spend more time playing the games than dabbling in the offseason screens. That's why I think these features should be optional in the Franchise Mode setup, so that your Franchise can be as basic or detailed as you wish. After all, that's something every developer should take into consideration when implementing a new feature - making it optional if possible, in case there are some users who do not wish to take advantage of it.
User avatar
Andrew
Assist Enthusiast
Administrator
 
Posts: 113904
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2002 8:51 pm
Location: Australia

Postby Nick on Wed Nov 20, 2002 7:29 pm

Knick, you read my mind, i'm not very good at explaining things, you put millions of my thoughts into words... I like these :idea:s...
I wonder if we sent this into EA they'd take it into consideration...maybe take people's requests seriously for once.
User avatar
Nick
Barnsketball
Contributor
 
Posts: 6536
Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2002 9:01 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Postby DR. P on Thu Nov 21, 2002 2:52 am

Well, done Knicker. Your idea and elaboration of the chemistry rating system was among the best that i've read. And as Andy mentioned, the chemistry idea has been tossed around for quite some time, but hopefully the way you explained its rationale and subsequent implementation will make it easier for EA/tiburon "heads" to understand how to conceptualize it. And I also like andrew's idea of maintaining flexibility with the feature, as well as a progression aspect, so that potential user's can choose when [and where] to use this feature. I'm always in favor of a new game engine if it means better gameplay and not an additional year's wait (i.e., 2 year wait as opposed to one].

But clearly EA's going to have to address some key issues in next year's game [i.e., the block-fest issue, realism in scoring, etc.], so a new engine may not be out of the question. Plus, hell, if FIFA can do it as you mentioned, then NBA Live should definitely be able to do it. But again, these ideas should be taken into consideration, especially if they keep popping up year after year.

What might also be cool would be to arrange an interview/chat with Tim or someone with a similar role, BEFORE the game is made as opposed to just sending a letter/e-mail to him or EA and keeping our fingers crossed. This way, he may be able to see what changes Live users are really adamant about as opposed to making spot judgements based upon our letters.

Best,

P
DR. P
 
Posts: 88
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2002 2:49 pm
Location: Hobart, Tazmania

Postby hoopscitylive on Thu Nov 21, 2002 4:43 am

Excellent post! It's posts like yours that could truly benefit the development of the game. It's hard to find gems like this among all the requests for All-Star weekends, in-game refs, authentic shoes, and other trivial features that should take a backseat to gameplay that realistically represents NBA basketball.

I wish EA were a little more interactive with their customers. It seems the only time they pop their heads into the community is to plug their game. I hope they are listening at least.
User avatar
hoopscitylive
 
Posts: 90
Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2002 3:14 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Postby Knickerbocker on Thu Nov 21, 2002 5:54 am

Thanks for the comments guys, it's wonderful hearing from all of you! :D

I agree with Andrew in that not everyone looks for the same thing in a game. Some people focus on team building, and others focus solely on gameplay. It's tough to strike the perfect balance, that's why Live has been evolving since the early 95 version.

My suggestion comes as an avid fantasy bball leaguer & a loyal gamer as well. From a commercial standpoint, I think adding a "Fantasy Enabled" game mode option would attract a whole new audience to the Live franchise, and of course increase sales. Think ESPN and offices all around the world would be doing pools and fantasy leagues if it wasn't profitable & entrancing?

Certainly, adding a more sophisticated sim engine would open a whole new pandora's box of technical concerns, but conversely, it would also open up a whole new world of commercial opportunities (sales, endorsement & sponsorship) as well. Why not go for it? Gameplay can only extend itself so far. I remember playing 95, 96 & 97 and wondered each time if the game could be improved, when gameplay seemed to reach a creative plateau, the franchise mode was introduced! It was bliss.

Looking at the current sports genre, there are very few pure bred sim games, the most successful (IMHO) is EA's Total Club Manager 2003. It's a soccer sim game, where you are the manager of a soccer team. You manage the finances, improve the stadium, and of course... build the team from scratch... bring them from obscurity to the big stage and win it all with an everlasting dynasty.

I understand Live meets many challenges because of the NBA's copyright concerns and the players' themselves also present tonnes of issues (just look at the bball cards!), so Live may never be able to simulate at the aforementioned level. However, enhanced simulation can look at these ideas:

Online Fantasy League
- enables people to play online like it currently can, but adds on an online fantasy draft
- perhaps it can also add an option where users can link to NBA.com to have the latest score shown on a ticker
- ideally, the raw statistical data can be streamed into a database where fantasy league owners can have their points calculated later or on-the-fly.

Solo Simulated Gameplay
- involve correctly simulated stats as previously mentioned

For users that prefer pure gameplay, they can just refer to overall player ratings for trades without having to study into the intricacies of simulated play.

The way video games have evolved is truly phenomenal. FIFA 2003 now comes with 2 discs because of the truly stunning graphics & new game engine, and some games like Ghost Recon and Diablo (old I know...) have upgrades or additional adventure packs.

Would Live ever consider adding a "Simulation / Fantasy League Add-on"? If time and integration becomes a problem, a simple add-on could be used to test the market. To further save money on R&D, consider developing a web-based sim game to try out the market. I'm sure that with a bit of viral marketing and the already huge fan base out there, it can be a success.

Hope these ideas will be seriously considered, and my comments don't offend. I think user opinion is extremely important in terms of building an ever better product, and should the feedback actually become less vociferous one day, it could be to the detriment of the franchise.

Keep posting,

Knickerbocker
Knickerbocker
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Nov 20, 2002 5:58 pm

Postby Andrew on Thu Nov 21, 2002 7:28 pm

Expansion/Add-On packs for sports games are rare though. More money can be made by making a completely new game for a new season of play. Of course, we've been able to make our own unofficial mods such as old season roster patches, but naturally there are some limitations.

Because Franchise Mode is such a popular feature - one might even go so far as to say that Season Mode has almost been rendered useless except for those who just want to keep up with the current NBA season and nothing more - I'm sure everyone would like to see changes made to the realism of simulated play and events as well as how the action unfolds when you play the game. There are certain feasibility issues confronting EA here - some things are probably a great idea until you try to program them.

In all the interviews Tim did (including our interview with him), he said that this year the focus was on gameplay, and while it seems some people would like to see further tweaks and improvements (I can't comment for a few more days), I also get the impression that there is visible improvement, so like I said perhaps the next version of Live will see more attention paid to the game modes with small tweaks to the gameplay (looks like Live 2003 has been the other way around). Given the importance of gameplay, it's good that EA concentrated on that before more superficial elements. Franchise Mode has room for improvement and additions, but as it is now, it's certainly not boring or unplayable. The impression that I got from my interview with Tim is that we could very well see improvements to game modes in future games (his comments about injuries and trades), but for now the focus is on gameplay - and rightly so.

Better to get one thing right before moving on to the next, rather than trying to disguise the same old thing with fancy extras. :)
User avatar
Andrew
Assist Enthusiast
Administrator
 
Posts: 113904
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2002 8:51 pm
Location: Australia

Postby Knickerbocker on Thu Nov 21, 2002 7:46 pm

Thanks Andrew! :)

I agree that gameplay is the heart of the game. In fact, gameplay has significantly improve in quite a few areas :!:

In any case, I think it's great that we have this forum to air our opinions, and more importantly, guys like you that represent EA are really reading the posts and participating with real thought into it.

Keep up the excellent work! :wink:

Knick.
Knickerbocker
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Nov 20, 2002 5:58 pm

Postby Andrew on Thu Nov 21, 2002 7:53 pm

I don't actually represent EA, the NLSC is an unofficial website. I'm not employed by EA in any capacity.
User avatar
Andrew
Assist Enthusiast
Administrator
 
Posts: 113904
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2002 8:51 pm
Location: Australia

Postby DR. P on Fri Nov 22, 2002 3:10 am

It's a shame though Andrew that a few of us aren't on the NBA development staff, at the very least as consultants or beta-testers, given our passion, enthusiasm, and support of the game over the years. Besides, I'm sure many of us could do a solid job in helping out. Plus, some of us wouldn't even require compensation. Just to know that you helped make a great game would be enough. You and Knicker, for instance, could provide immediate help just from what you've mentioned in this thread alone. If it were only possible.........


Best,

P
DR. P
 
Posts: 88
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2002 2:49 pm
Location: Hobart, Tazmania

Postby Andrew on Fri Nov 22, 2002 11:10 am

Thanks for the kind words P. :) I'd sure love to be a beta tester or be involved in the development of NBA Live in some way, and you're right, compensation would come in the form of knowing I'd done my part to help develop a great game. All I can do in my capacity as webmaster of an unofficial fan site is to maintain the wishlist and submit it to EA, but that's still something. After all, wishes have been granted before - we have an in-game editor (though not as detailed as the Toolkits) and we have multiple season play.
User avatar
Andrew
Assist Enthusiast
Administrator
 
Posts: 113904
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2002 8:51 pm
Location: Australia

Postby Knickerbocker on Fri Nov 22, 2002 2:34 pm

I agree with Andrew, it's good to know that people ARE listening, and to the least, some ideas have been implemented.

I also think it's a shame that Andrew isn't part of the team, or at least a part of the beta testing group.

Shouldn't EA consider getting their most loyal fans involved in the brainstorming part of the game?

Cheers,
K.
Knickerbocker
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Nov 20, 2002 5:58 pm

Postby Andrew on Fri Nov 22, 2002 3:18 pm

Well, I'm in Australia so it's not really feasible for EA to employ me, but I'm happy to help in any way I can, which is why I'll be compiling the wishlist again this year (it used to be an annual thing, but the last couple of years we've just had the forum).
User avatar
Andrew
Assist Enthusiast
Administrator
 
Posts: 113904
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2002 8:51 pm
Location: Australia

Postby GForce11 on Wed Nov 27, 2002 10:54 am

I think the points you guys have brought up are great. I specially like the one about Chemistry & player tendencies. Maybe we can add in Personality and Experience to that mix. That way we can address issues like players off courts problems, work ethic and technical fault tendencies with the Personality rating (this could also affect the way players react after a shot is made, missed or blocked) and work ethic (which affects their development over the season). As far as experience, this could address issues like playoff success, consistency of that player., locker room precence and things like that. Experience can also be used as an indicator for the players influence on rookies and their paycheck.
The main goal here would be to address as many aspects of the game with the least amount of variables, thus making the game easier to program.

Also, I would like to suggest perhaps a feature that allows the user to change certain aspects of the game and computer AI. Allow for more flexibility.
If you have noticed in NHL 2002 and on, they give the user a lot of choices on which aspects of the game you can alter, such as passing, game speed, etc...
I think that would be a great asset. That way players can mold the AI and difficulty to reflex their playing style. Example. If you feel blocking is too much, then have a level that tones down the blocking stats of players during gameplay. Or if you feel that stealing is too easy, then you can lower the turnover slider to decrease the probablility of your pass getting stolen. Same goes for ball handling and game speed. This is cut down on the cpu's ability to change directions too fast and things like that.
One other point which was brought up....making stats your development. I find it extremely frustrating that I can use a 75 rating guy and play extremely well with him and the following season, his rating goes down. Stats and rating should be dynamic and adjust to the players performance.
GForce11
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 8:48 am
Location: LBC

great ideas

Postby DWagner on Thu Dec 12, 2002 2:40 am

I just want to say that these ideas are great and should not be overlooked by EA. We should remember that this is hard to do technically. There are so many things that have to be worked together and how to run it well without bugs. GForce11 had a really good idea with the experiance. I think the personality is a lot to ask on how to create personalities and change them in simulation. Knickerbocker started this whole thing with that great post. :D
DWagner
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 2:13 am

Postby LegoSHAQ on Thu Dec 12, 2002 9:22 am

Exellent requests... I think the franchise mode is the most important aspect of the game... and is what really makes NBA Live a good game..
Because Franchise Mode is such a popular feature - one might even go so far as to say that Season Mode has almost been rendered useless except for those who just want to keep up with the current NBA season and nothing more


This is not entirely true... Season mode at the moment is the only way you can play a schedule with then less than 16 teams... for some strange reason Franchise mode demands that you have at least 16 teams.. this kinda sucks if you want to set up a custom league... with say 11 teams.. at the moment you can do this in season but not in franchise? very strange... as long as they change franchise to not require 16 teams... then sure get rid of season mode... but at the moment I need it to play my custom NBL seasons... :wink:
LegoSHAQ
 

Re: great ideas

Postby DR. P on Thu Dec 12, 2002 2:25 pm

DWagner wrote:I just want to say that these ideas are great and should not be overlooked by EA. We should remember that this is hard to do technically.


Yes, DWag, it may be hard to do but if EA is making a profit margin of almost 250 million in sales on the Madden game alone in a single year, which was an 8 million dollar investment, then I'd say it should be quite workable to address many of our issues with such a budget. Compound this over say 4-5 years and your talking about a billion dollar enterprise and we're still asking for some of the same things to be implemented like the ability to make custom teams and better gameplay?

[see this article for a review:

http://www.business2.com/articles/mag/0 ... 90,FF.html]

Moreover, if EA has gobbled up 95% of the College Football market and is KTFO-ing Sega in both the pro football and college football markets [as this article suggests http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.01/sports.html ] then why doesn't EA takeover the whole PC market as well on both levels and give us a college Football and College Basketball game as they once did? Its just interesting to me that when we view this in terms of dollars and cents it seems that EA should be able to address the overall majority of our concerns given their resources. They're attracting the best people that money can buy in this market so why not close the door on the competition and give the consumer a game that he/she can't do without in all genres? I mean financially isn't it in their best interest?

Just thought I'd vent a bit,

Best,

P
DR. P
 
Posts: 88
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2002 2:49 pm
Location: Hobart, Tazmania

Postby Andrew on Fri Dec 13, 2002 8:14 pm

This is not entirely true... Season mode at the moment is the only way you can play a schedule with then less than 16 teams... for some strange reason Franchise mode demands that you have at least 16 teams.. this kinda sucks if you want to set up a custom league... with say 11 teams.. at the moment you can do this in season but not in franchise? very strange... as long as they change franchise to not require 16 teams... then sure get rid of season mode... but at the moment I need it to play my custom NBL seasons...


True, didn't think of that. Season Mode still has some use, and I wouldn't suggest taking it out unless Franchise Mode becomes customisable to the point of being able to play a single season. But as you said, Franchise Mode has become the most important aspect of the game (at least in terms of the gameplay modes, gameplay remains the most important aspect of all), so I'm looking forward to any future improvements.

Meanwhile, I'm very impressed with NBA Live 2003. I haven't really been able to play a game yet because I'm bringing my PC up to speed, but I've been checking out all the little details and I certainly like what I see. Personally, I think Live 2003 is good news now, and good news for the future of the NBA Live series.
User avatar
Andrew
Assist Enthusiast
Administrator
 
Posts: 113904
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2002 8:51 pm
Location: Australia

Profits

Postby Tribester on Sat Dec 21, 2002 12:36 pm

The problem with using the Madden example is that the article doesn't mention that EA poured millions into advertising the game, you've all seen the commercials with Ray Lewis and such. Also, that was the total profits spread over all the console versions AND PC, most of which was from the consoles. The problem with creating a highly advanced simulation engine is that it would be hard for the consoles, which have no hard drive, to run. That would mean developing a highly advanced technology for the smallest market; PC. This is probably not very feasible considering the rampant pirating of games, which hurts everyone. When anyone with a high-speed connection can download the new version of KaZaA without going to the store and paying $40 for it, the sales numbers go way down. I expect, however, to see a 'rebirth' in interest in the PC market a few years down the road, when PC graphics have overtaken the stagnant consoles, which have no upgrades. Think of Nintendo 64 graphics compared to Madden 2003... and you know which one people will buy. Since the next generation of consoles will not be out for at least 5 years, we will have a 'renaissance' in about 2005.
Tribester
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2002 12:30 pm
Location: NY

Postby crimxon_stallion on Sun Dec 22, 2002 11:48 pm

Those are some really excelent ideas, and several issues that have lingered in my mind for years. It annoyed me terribly last year when i saw Keon Clark excel for the Raptors and really elevate his game, and then when i signed him in franchise mode and made him my starting center, i found he went on to average about 7 PPG, 1.2 BPG and 5 or 6 RPG in around 38 minutes. Another possible idea for that chemistry feature is that (since it is in a way an indication of how well a player understands the game) it should change over the years. For example, rookies are fresh in the league and very few rookies and immidiately excel in the NBA. Most inexperienced players play with less consistency and wuality under pressure, such as in close games, and during playyoffs, so teams full of highly talented, highly rated, but inexperienced players should win games, but struggle during playoffs. After they have played more in the NBA, young players should improve in the "chemistry" rating. At the moment i rarely have older players on my teams in Live, because they are a threat to retire or to degrade in their rating, however if this feature was implemented for the chemistry rating, then it would make me want to have at least a few decent players with experience on the team. I can't think of an NBA without a few experienced players that has gotten past the first round of the playoffs recently. Also, if a player has increadibly high chemistry, then it should maybe influence teh ratings of the other players around him. E.g. Washington signed Oakley so that he could give tips to their young big men, not so much for big influence on the court. Likewise with J-kidd who went to New Jersey and made everybody on the team better. Also, inside scoring doesnt seem to influence simulated stats much. Inside scoring ratings should influence FG percentage i think. For example, a created player in Live now witha FG rating of over 90 will almost always score at over 50% from the field, but in reality agreat scorer wil lnot always score at a high percentage. Also, players with high inside scorign abilities, but not great offensive games (such as mutombo and ben wallace rasho nesterovic) will only score soem 9 or 10 PPG, but will shoot at 48-50+ % from the field. FG ratign should not entirely determine FG%. As mentioned earlier, player tendancy features could be implimented. This way, a player wiht a FG rating or 90 who has a lower shooting tendancy would probably score at high percentages, while a player with the same ratig nof 90, but a higher tendancy to take shots, would probably shoot at a lower percentage. The current primacy ratign could have had this type of effect, but unfortunately when i crated a player with ratign of 90 in FG, 3PT, and 94 Passing, and set primacy to 50, and put him in the lakers with jkobe and shaq (each with a primacy of 95+) he still scored 23PPG in franchise mode. I constantly look for a way to get a player to be able to average high percentages from the field without scoring 20PPG. This happens often in the NBA (i.e john stockton), but a player cant really be created to have such a rating unles sthey are on the bench. This brings me to another issue..bench scoring. i have never seen a starter in NBA live average less then 36 MPG , nor have i seen a bench player in live average more then abotu 12 a game. For this reason, if u have J-kidd starting, and a star like baron davis as a backup, he'll only give youabout 6 points and 2 or 3 (if lucky) assists per game. Also, usually about 0.3 steals. In the NBA, there are few teams in which every started averages 36+MPG. The minutes played should beinfluenced by the quality of other players on teh team and their primacy rating. For e.g. if your 6th man has a ratign of 74 then its fair enough eh wont play a huge amout of minutes and give you massive numbers, but there are several players in the league who average over 12 or 13 PPG from the 6th man position, which does not happen in live unless u constantly which their positions in the roster while simulating. e.g. by having two centres start 41 games each u can get quite even numbers, but this shouldnt be neccessary. im not sure how other bball games handle this, but this is a HUGE issue. IF u have nick van exel as a 6th man hes gonna give u more then 6 points and 2 assists, and hell play alot more then 12 minutes no matter what team he's on. Also, i noticed that u will see that after 10 simulated years, when shaq is 39, as long as hes starting hes still giving u 29 PGP, 11 RPG, 2.5 BPG and 37 minutes. Not to mention often getting MVP at that age. Players ratign go down but their stats stay pretty much the sam eunless they are created player (which case stats are based on rating - as should be). in live 2003 jordan is giving 2.8 steals per game, 1.6 BPG and averaging ab out 25 points, and got defensive player of the year. Lets face it, Mj is not gettign defensive player of the year at age 40. Another issue is for some reason my PG always averagex more points then anyone in simulated games. When my ratings are 90 for all players in FG, my PG and SG usually average around 23 or 24 PPG, while my C will average about 19 and my PF around 17 or 18. the rating should give the same scoring, not the position. IF anything a PG should score less, and a 7"2 280 pound C with a 90 FG rating and 95 inside scorign ratign should average well over 19 or so points per game. I also think that physical size should play a part. No matter how good, a 5"8 150 pound PG will always struggle in the NBA when hes competing against guys 5 inches taller and 40 -50 pounds heavier then him every day. Sure, it shouldnt make them worthless, but it should make themless dominant. A 7"2 centre with a 90 injumping and 90 in blocking should get more blocks then a 6"6 forward with a jump rating of 60 and a block rating of 90. It shouldnt make 2 BPG difference probably, but soem type of ingluence should be there. Also, a player who has a high FG rating, good inside scoring, good speed and quickness, and good jumping and strength, should be near the top of the league in free throw attempts. None of my created players ever get alot of simulated attempts, no mater what the stats. these rating should all influence free throw attempts. Shaq gets to the line more then PJ brown, Kobe gets there more then Allan Houston, and there IS a reason for it. If people don't want rating too closely pased on physical issues, then the "aggressiveness" rating should maybe affect this. "laid back" "hyped up" and neutral are settign now which seem to me to be completely cosmetic. They dont seem to affect the player in the game. they should. Possibly a "laid back" player may be better inder pressure or be a better leader while a "hyped up" player may get to the line more and should get called for more fouls. This is another issue, often when players get experience they earn respect of referees and dotn get called for as many fouls. In live, if a player has greater experience this could possibly affet his simulated fouls per game. Also, a clutch feature should be included (as once was) and should influence simmed games and played games. If you are at the end of a game, down by 2 with 1 minute left, and a player is at the foul line who has a bad clutch rating, then his free-throw meter could possibly move faster then usualy to simulate possibly more stress then usual or soemthign of that form. Comparitively, an average free throw shooter with a very high rating may shoot even better under pressure, and thus hes meter should slow down a little. A player with a neutral rating should be influenced very little by this and play relatively equally at al times. Players with low clutch rating may also score less in teh playoffs, at a lower percentage, and also commit more fouls and turnovers during playoff simulated games. The system with steals at the moment isnt too bad, maybe jsut tone down the number of stolen passes a little, its not so bad. The mid air passes are almost always intercepted in Live 2k3, and i think this should be unchanged unless the player ahs an increadibly good passign ability (90+). Also, a player wiht a lowpassign ability, should throw more bad passes that go out of bbounds eveyry now and then or maybe to the opposing player by accident once or twice here and there. Right now u can get a plyer with a pass ratign of 55 in live and the only affect it has greatly is that he wtno get many assists. Players may have a rating determining nature (e.g. flashy or simple). A simple player might make alot of very plain passes, but they all reach their target, and they everage 9 or so assits per game, while a flashy player might do alot of behind the back passes and the like, and possible get more turnovers, but get a couple more assists as well, as they might get a player the ball that the other passer may not. Shot blockign could have a strength sensitive system. the longer u hold the button the harder the force of the block. a tap coudl result in knockign the ball a touch out of its trrajectory, while holdign it the whole way could result in it flying into the stands or out of court. Players with higher strength ratings would probably throw otu blocks further then those wiht lower ratings. The charge button in live 2k3 was an excellent addition. It is probably one of my favorite moves, and ithink adds a great deal to the game. Praise to EA for that one. The push button, or a hold button , should be implemented again so that fast breaks can be stopped or end of game fouls can be made when the clock has to be stopped. Maybe the hold button would be better because that way it's a non violent way to foul, and more realistic. mabye double tapping the hold button while holdign run or something could result in a push, and 5/10 times could result in a flagrant foul. Players with high intensity or aggresiveness ratings should be more likely to do this and be called for flagrants / technicals. Inside scoring ability should have more effect on a players likeliness to make a shot inside. In like 2k3 almost any player will score a post up bucket if they put one up, even if its a 5"9 PG posting up on a 6"7 SF. That is, assuming they dont get blocked. On the other hand, a 6:10 PF should score 9/10 times when mismatched up against a 6"5 guard. Another issue here, mistmatches should be handles well by the CPU. If the othe rteam has a significant height mismatch, they should post up 9 times out of ten. If they ahve a quicker guard against a taller slower forward on a mismatch, they should try to take them off the dribble. Double teams should be made on 3 occassions only:
1) Against a player with a very high inside scoring rating in the post
2) Against a player with a big height advantage in the post
3) Occasionally if another player is increadibly hot and cant seem to be stopped, then maybe a double can be brought over.

These are soem major idea i have, and i'll add in any more if i think of them. I hope some of these are interesting or possible to implement wihtout to omuch difficulty. Thanks !
crimxon_stallion
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2002 4:10 pm

Postby crimxon_stallion on Sun Dec 22, 2002 11:50 pm

P.S. Sorry about the length of the post ! I didn't realise it was that long..also sorry for not puttin gin any paragraphs..thats gona be a hell of a post to read lol.
crimxon_stallion
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2002 4:10 pm


Return to NBA Live 2004

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests