Rating system

by **Filip** on Fri May 21, 2004 9:06 pm

I like the old one better, cause the other is to much, difficult to know what good and what not good is. With the ol 50-99 it was easier to set a fair rating to a player.

by **sixerfan03** on Sat May 22, 2004 1:04 am

It's really no different. It's just something to get used to.

by **Jay-Peso** on Sat May 22, 2004 5:44 am

sixerfan03 wrote:It's really no different. It's just something to get used to.

True.

You just have to get used to it all and think about it in a bigger perspective (0-99) rather than 50-99!

by **Ruff Ryder** on Sat May 22, 2004 8:07 am

Dang, I voted for the wrong one. I like the 0-99 system because it makes the overall rating seem more accurite. Do you think J-Rich is an 85? No...OK then...

by **ubrikkean** on Sat May 22, 2004 9:36 am

0-99 makes more sense, although 50-99 makes it easier to compare between the older games & the new games; why the ratings ever did start at 50 in the first place i have no idea. 0-99 is logical

by **Nick** on Sat May 22, 2004 12:50 pm

I like 0-99 much better...

Slam you just need more time to get used to it. It's really just the same thing..

50 now = 75 then...
60 now = 80 then...
80 now = 90 then...
etc..

Bluesky · by **Andrew** on Sat May 22, 2004 12:54 pm

I've grown used to the 0-99 system, and after a season of maintaining the rosters with the new system, I have to say that I prefer it. As others have already mentioned, it's basically the same system, except that the ratings in the DBF appear the same in the game. So my vote goes to the current 0-99 system.

by **Filip** on Sat May 22, 2004 9:34 pm

Well I haven't got use to it @ all. I never know what a rating in say fg a player should have. I't seems uncesseary 2 since everything below 40 is shit (I think

)

by **Metsis** on Sat May 22, 2004 10:28 pm

I like the 0-99 system too... Although the differences between 95 player and 85 player are quite small.

I believe that the average rating in 2004 was about 60 (original rosters) maybe point or two lower. They only thought about this new system when they thought that they could move the rosters from NCAA hoops to Live for a draft... Which is a nice idea. But as NCAA is only a console game it really doesn't matter to us PC users.

Everything under 40 is pretty much crap. But wasn't everything under 65 crap before? So it really hasn't changed. And when you take out the rookies that are almost randomly created what statistics are under 40. Dunking, maybe strength and blocking for guards... Three pointers and free throws for centers... Rookies are still a bunch of crap...

by **Filip** on Sun May 23, 2004 9:56 am

Everything under 40 is pretty much crap. But wasn't everything under 65 crap before? So it really hasn't changed

Nah with the old system it was a differnt between 50 and 60.
Now tell me what different is it between 0-40? Nothing.

Old system
50-55 = worthless
55-60 = very bad
61-69 = bad
70-75 = solid
76-80 = almost good
80-84 = good
85-89 = verygood
90-94 = Excellent
95-99 = :shock:

With this system it's easy to choose rating for a player. I could set 85 to RIP when he scored 20points in 30minuts.
Now I have no clue what he should have... (if he still scored 20p in 30m)

New system
0-40 = worthless

...Then I have no idea

by **fgrep15** on Sun May 23, 2004 10:59 am

Just rate the players on what they can do, you don't have to be thinking this guy is better than this guy so he should have a better rating, rate him on what he can do, and whatever the rating turns out to be who cares, as long as the player plays right when you use them.

Look at Ben Wallace, he doesn't get super high ratings because of his limited skills, but he's better than a handful of players who get better ratings than him but can do more things.

by **hmm** on Mon May 24, 2004 3:45 am

by **Gripni** on Mon May 24, 2004 6:15 am

The 0-99 system is much better. There is no point of wasting 0-50. With 0-99, there is a difference between Jason Richardson and Ben Wallace. In '03, they were both 85. Now, Wallace is 75 and Richardson is 72. There is a 3 point difference.

Yeah, it's easier to rate people, but that's because you have half as many options. You say 85 in 50-99, but with 0-99, you use the 2x more accurate 72-75.

by **havasufalls** on Tue May 25, 2004 1:47 am

0-99 is alittle better since it better seperates the players

by **keithpetty** on Thu May 27, 2004 4:07 am

0-99 system is way better than the 50-99. The 0-99 system is more realistic than the other one. I hope on nba live 2005 they keep the 0-99 ratings system. On this 0-99 system you can tell which players are superstars, stars, average, and sorry. I love this system and everybody else should love this 0-99 ratings system too.

by **Ben-le-ouf** on Sat May 29, 2004 2:01 am

The 0-99 system !

The more values you have, the more precise the players' skills will be.

Rating system

Which rating system do you prefer?

Rating system

0-99

Who is online