NBA Live 13 will not be released

[Ermolli]

...
Hope this helps.

I know there are priorities while making a game, that you can't put everything you want in the game in a year cycle, etc but there has been things that have been asked for years and it's like those things were ignored, two that come to my mind right now are animations and body models. Are you telling me those couple aren't in the A or B in the priorities list? As you've said the foundation of the core gameplay has to be locked down before adding other stuff but aren't animations a huge part of the foundation? If the game doesn't look right or the moves made by the players are awkward, it doesn't matter how responsive the game could be, gamers would be turned off by it. I believe that if you ask most basketball gamers where would they locate animations in a priority list they would place it really high.
About body models, I've read that the team during the Live 13 cycle have spent around 100 hours making each face. Were faces part of the A or B of priorities? Yeah, most faces were really good but if the body models don't look right then it doesn't matter how much effort it's been put on faces. The entire graphic part of the game should be treated the same, faces, body models, body types, lightning, uniforms (which from the pics don't look that good), stadiums, etc.

Most basketball gamers have been disappointed and not trusting EA's basketball department because they feel they haven't been listened and taken into consideration, they/we are looking for a bidirectional exchange of communication whcih they/we feel you care about us because, after all, we're people who are potential consumers of your products.

Also, I feel it's very difficult to give feedback about the game when we we almost don't know anything about the game itself. The only things we could give feedback about something relatively current is some few screenshots, a trailer and a leaked gameplay video (which could be useless since Scott said today that the video is old). If you really want feedback then the team shouldn't hide from us like you did during the Live 13 cycle because it doesn't help any side. I'm not asking a full game of gameplay per month but we need to know and see more about the game in order to help make it better. People over the Live forums around the internet feel ignored by EA so you (EA Bbal team) need to try to erase thad bad image even though you're not entirely to blame, I feel that if you want to gain again people's trust you shouldn't just be here because it makes the rest feel outside of this.

I hope you, Scott or the rest of the team don't take it the wrong way, I'm trying to give constructive criticism to maybe help you realize how many feel about the Live franchise.

[Postgame]

The thing about the ABC's reminds me of features getting taken out or re-written because once you have all the A's and start on the B's, the B's break the A's and you end up having to start over. What I am trying to get at is it seems like Live is tightly coded where one thing depends on the other, and once you change one thing, it breaks the balance of the game. So, when you are building your foundations, keep in mind that you will have to tune them later on when you want to add or change something. Think of it like interchangeable parts.

What I would do, is look at C or Z or wherever you would like the end result to be, then go backwards towards the basic fundamentals. That way you know the steps to take to get to your ultimate goal.

This is true and works to a certain extent. It is hard to tune basketball games in general because of how quickly the state flow changes. Basketball at its core is very fluid in flow, you can change possession and role very rapidly but your point is understood. You just have to make sure that the solutions to the problems are not band aid solutions and they are real solutions that work in the real nba. Trying to fix problems with band aids will get you in trouble later down the road so we avoid that at all costs.

[Postgame]

...
Hope this helps.

I know there are priorities while making a game, that you can't put everything you want in the game in a year cycle, etc but there has been things that have been asked for years and it's like those things were ignored, two that come to my mind right now are animations and body models. Are you telling me those couple aren't in the A or B in the priorities list? As you've said the foundation of the core gameplay has to be locked down before adding other stuff but aren't animations a huge part of the foundation? If the game doesn't look right or the moves made by the players are awkward, it doesn't matter how responsive the game could be, gamers would be turned off by it. I believe that if you ask most basketball gamers where would they locate animations in a priority list they would place it really high.
About body models, I've read that the team during the Live 13 cycle have spent around 100 hours making each face. Were faces part of the A or B of priorities? Yeah, most faces were really good but if the body models don't look right then it doesn't matter how much effort it's been put on faces. The entire graphic part of the game should be treated the same, faces, body models, body types, lightning, uniforms (which from the pics don't look that good), stadiums, etc.

Most basketball gamers have been disappointed and not trusting EA's basketball department because they feel they haven't been listened and taken into consideration, they/we are looking for a bidirectional exchange of communication whcih they/we feel you care about us because, after all, we're people who are potential consumers of your products.

Also, I feel it's very difficult to give feedback about the game when we we almost don't know anything about the game itself. The only things we could give feedback about something relatively current is some few screenshots, a trailer and a leaked gameplay video (which could be useless since Scott said today that the video is old). If you really want feedback then the team shouldn't hide from us like you did during the Live 13 cycle because it doesn't help any side. I'm not asking a full game of gameplay per month but we need to know and see more about the game in order to help make it better. People over the Live forums around the internet feel ignored by EA so you (EA Bbal team) need to try to erase thad bad image even though you're not entirely to blame, I feel that if you want to gain again people's trust you shouldn't just be here because it makes the rest feel outside of this.

I hope you, Scott or the rest of the team don't take it the wrong way, I'm trying to give constructive criticism to maybe help you realize how many feel about the Live franchise.

I agree animations are very important. I had stated earlier where those were in our priorities in this thread. Animations are a heavy focus, the problems with animations I also listed above. I have read countless threads at OS about animations, trust me when I say we agree with the criticisms about them. One of the issues that I didn't elaborate on is that you have to have the systems in place before you can add the animations to really fill out the feature because you have to know how you need to author the animations in order for them to work. I know you guys don't have a lot to go off of when it comes to feedback and I wish I could show you more but my hands are tied. I wasn't hiding during the cycle, I stopped by here a few times during the cycle but you have to understand not a lot can be said during that time for obvious reasons.

Also in regards to body models, those are not on the gameplay team, but I can tell you that we have ways of tweaking them and my understanding was they were put against full body photos of the players. I agree with some of the feedback I read about the shoulders and the jerseys and to a lesser extent skin tones but that stuff is the art team. Bad animations you can yell at gameplay about. The faces were art team as well, they didn't spend 100 on every head but the superstars for the most part they did. I can't do anything about years past in regards to community interaction but I have been reading the forums for months and there have been plenty of times that I wanted to respond but I can't because of limitations of what I am allowed to say.

I understand why a lot of the community is jaded and all I can do to change it is try to be as open as I'm allowed to be. For the time being ill answer what I can here on nlsc but know that I do read all the threads on OS as well. They may feel ignored but they aren't. I agree with a lot of the feedback said over there and plan on doing as much as I can to rectify those problems. You aren't offending anyone by saying how you feel, we are grown men and can take negative feedback, and most likely agree with what is being said. You can say something sucks or its garbage but unless you elaborate on why you feel that way it's not very helpful. You will get asked questions and posed with potential problems with making decisions to better illustrate the position we are sometimes in. To have the bidirectional exchanges that you guys want both parties have to want the game to succeed and then we can move together towards that goal. Again for now ill be here answering whatever questions I can to anyone that wants to ask them and let it be known that I am a big boy and can handle the criticisms.

[Nick]

Which part of the team works on Dynasty mode? How many people in the team?

[AMenace]

I personally think it's great that the developers are taking time out of Live 14 to keep us informed on what's going on, the direction from here etc.

I think there is 2 aspects that EA can win back customers for next year's game, that is online and a lot of customization. That is if the core gameplay is up to standard. I understand that gameplay should come first, as with all games, although I don't think so many hours should have been spent getting the faces right with the gameplay first approach in mind.

After playing the 2K13 demo, one thing is obvious, and that is 2K need some competition, or something different needs to be out there, that's why the team has my full support for this upcoming development cycle. For areas like customization, things such as jerseys, gear, custom shoes not limited to nike, jordan, heck, even creating your own basketball to use in the game would be innovative and would get customers. What EA did with the jersey creation tool for Live 09 is something that could be implemented or at least be a seperate online tool.

How you could approach that is the following: In layers, first have a colour, then side trim selection, colour for side trims, neck type, then some textures for placing an effect on the jersey, then lettering for the name, then numbers, and then a logo design feature similar to the emblem creator in Call Of Duty Black Ops. That had not that many options for shapes etc, but virtually anything could be created. Also this would work in create a team, or even team up crews online.

[benji]

I'd like to inquire about philosophical components.

When you create the AI design how do you intend to go about it? (Or have at this point, rather, assume "start of development" situation.) Do you start with an AI that always can stop the individual player/itself and introduce flaws to it? Is this too resource intensive and so are you taking what existed in past Lives and reworking it instead?

Greg Thomas claimed years ago that in the case of Madden there are fundamental AI and gameplay rules that cannot be broken (even to improve them) because it violates "how Madden is supposed to play", assume this to be a true statement, is there such a requirement on Live or how you are approaching Live? Is there a notion that Live needs to be a slightly arcadey take on basketball or could it become a hardcore basketball simulation no one would want to play? Again, where do you start?

In terms of the differentiation of players is the 0-99 rating system the best method? Is there significant noticeable difference to the player between a 80 rated rebounder and 81 rated? I'm sure you've played some of 2K's My Player, in many instances when you "level up" your rating (outside of shooting mostly) there's little noticeable difference in how well you can do things with that player. Getting 15 rebounds with a 65 rated rebounder is not significantly harder than doing so with Dwight Howard. I know I'm discussing a different game series, but it's something that's been an issue across all games since Double Dribble and has been in Live's past. Especially consider something like the steal rating, there's a hundred ratings, but it's rare that players average more than three steals or 3% in steal percentage. Is there again a real fundamental difference between a player who gets 2.8 steals and 2.9? A difference between a 91 rated and 95? Especially when a player's average changes from month to month, year to year, etc.

Maybe going to more ratings and thus simply using the statistical value is better at differentiation. Or perhaps shrinking to a grade system, F, D, C, B, A, A+/S (since it's a video game) loses no important information? Dwight being a 99 rebounder means what? Dwight being the only A+/S rated rebounder in the game places him clearly above all other players as each "step" matters more.

And in discussing ratings, how exactly do some impact and how to show this to the player? Take the "offensive awareness" rating, should not Shane Battier be highly rated in this? What value does a highly rated player in these categories indicate to the player? How does it affect what I can do with him?

And that comes back to if these distinctions are even impacting the player. James Jones likely can do crossovers and spin moves, he won't dribble off his feet or lose control, but you can't allow him to do this in game, is slowing him down more realistic, or is it less a function of what he's doing but the defense? How do you stop me from just spamming threes with him without "altering" his abilities?

It's easy to make an AI Bestbrook go wild and out of control, pull up for threes the instant he comes down court, but how do you make the player say "Why Not?" Can you? Does a Westbrook who doesn't ask this question and play right "break" how he, the team and the game plays? Do you just let players do that since they're in control? How do you impose usage limitations on the player instead of LeBron using 80% of possessions?

[NBaller_76]

Both from a business point of view, and also from a huge NBA fan (from Malta in Europe) I wouldn't scrap all the work done on NBA Live 13. The best thing to do now for EA Sports is look at the Market....and guess what ?? Is there any 'Fifa Manager 13' type of basketball game around ?? The answer is NO!! So, if EA Sports failed in Simulation NBA games, it should work on getting the best NBA Management game ever !! I've been longing to have such a game for so long. Now EA Sports have the NBA license, the player models are there, the courts, cyberfaces and other graphics are all there...they should just work on the Management area of the game (like drafts, contracts, training, sponsors,match dynamics like in Fifa Manager etc)...and produce the best ever NBA Management game !! What do you think Andrew and all those reading my comment ?

[Andrew]

As I said in my comments on the news post, it's an interesting idea but I'm not that interested in management games and it doesn't appear there's been enough demand for a basketball manager in the past for EA to create one, so I don't know about the chances of that. Personally, I'd rather the NBA Live series remained a gameplay based, sim oriented game that re-establishes itself as a viable alternative to NBA 2K, but if the market is there then perhaps a spinoff title could be explored.

[Postgame]

I'd like to inquire about philosophical components.

When you create the AI design how do you intend to go about it? (Or have at this point, rather, assume "start of development" situation.) Do you start with an AI that always can stop the individual player/itself and introduce flaws to it? Is this too resource intensive and so are you taking what existed in past Lives and reworking it instead?

Greg Thomas claimed years ago that in the case of Madden there are fundamental AI and gameplay rules that cannot be broken (even to improve them) because it violates "how Madden is supposed to play", assume this to be a true statement, is there such a requirement on Live or how you are approaching Live? Is there a notion that Live needs to be a slightly arcadey take on basketball or could it become a hardcore basketball simulation no one would want to play? Again, where do you start?

In terms of the differentiation of players is the 0-99 rating system the best method? Is there significant noticeable difference to the player between a 80 rated rebounder and 81 rated? I'm sure you've played some of 2K's My Player, in many instances when you "level up" your rating (outside of shooting mostly) there's little noticeable difference in how well you can do things with that player. Getting 15 rebounds with a 65 rated rebounder is not significantly harder than doing so with Dwight Howard. I know I'm discussing a different game series, but it's something that's been an issue across all games since Double Dribble and has been in Live's past. Especially consider something like the steal rating, there's a hundred ratings, but it's rare that players average more than three steals or 3% in steal percentage. Is there again a real fundamental difference between a player who gets 2.8 steals and 2.9? A difference between a 91 rated and 95? Especially when a player's average changes from month to month, year to year, etc.

Maybe going to more ratings and thus simply using the statistical value is better at differentiation. Or perhaps shrinking to a grade system, F, D, C, B, A, A+/S (since it's a video game) loses no important information? Dwight being a 99 rebounder means what? Dwight being the only A+/S rated rebounder in the game places him clearly above all other players as each "step" matters more.

And in discussing ratings, how exactly do some impact and how to show this to the player? Take the "offensive awareness" rating, should not Shane Battier be highly rated in this? What value does a highly rated player in these categories indicate to the player? How does it affect what I can do with him?

And that comes back to if these distinctions are even impacting the player. James Jones likely can do crossovers and spin moves, he won't dribble off his feet or lose control, but you can't allow him to do this in game, is slowing him down more realistic, or is it less a function of what he's doing but the defense? How do you stop me from just spamming threes with him without "altering" his abilities?

It's easy to make an AI Bestbrook go wild and out of control, pull up for threes the instant he comes down court, but how do you make the player say "Why Not?" Can you? Does a Westbrook who doesn't ask this question and play right "break" how he, the team and the game plays? Do you just let players do that since they're in control? How do you impose usage limitations on the player instead of LeBron using 80% of possessions?

The approach that we are taking when it comes to AI is that we are going to take what works and doesn't work in real life nba, break down why it does or does not and then try to simulate it as much as we can. This gets tricky at times and it's very easy to allow exploits if you don't test things out thoroughly but for us, with the goal being a simulation basketball game, this is the best way to go about doing it. When you look at basketball there is a reason why the pick and roll is so effective and hard to defend, a defense really has to play as a team and help in order to slow it down. There are different strategies to defending the pick and roll and you have to break those down as to why and when you do them and you have to give the same risk reward to the user in the simulation as you do in real basketball. Every time you design any feature you have to think of balance, you can't just say, oh it would be cool if I can just do this move and score because there are consequences with that move in real life and if you don't account for them in a simulation then they become an exploit. Take the post for example, why don't teams just throw it to Dwight Howard every single play? He can beat his man the majority of the time and very few centers can slow him down. You can't do it because he gets denied/double teamed and in late game situations you don't do it because he can't hit free throws to put the game away and teams are going to intentionally foul him. What happens though is because he is such a presence and you have to double team him, it opens up other guys, guys like Ryan Anderson made a living off of this fact, Kobe will probably get a lot more open looks next year as well with Gasol and Howard down low. When they cheat down to help you have to make sure that you punish them by kicking the ball back out and you can't let the defender close out at an unrealistic speed or the balance is lost. Every step of the way you have to think about risk/reward, otherwise the game gets out of control and unbalanced. The hardest part is isolating every single one of these variables and making sure that when you build on the logic that you don't do damage to the work you have already done, this is an extremely challenging juggling act and its why basketball is probably the hardest sim game to make. I think that a sim basketball game can be extremely fun because it teaches people the sport at the same time they are playing. Madden has taught people football for years to the point that people who never played a down in their life can understand what is going on when they watch the NFL. Why not make basketball the same way? There is a reason why Guards in the NBA don't do a thousand dribble moves every time they come down the court, hoping that they break the defenders ankle and shoot every trip down or never pass the ball and become a black hole that the ball never leaves. (well.... other than westbrook) You have to break down the "why" and try to create that as much as possible. If you are going to make an NBA game that is supposed to be a simulation it had better be a simulation, if you want arcade style basketball there is Jam and the old Street games. Once people understand the rules of any game they can learn and adapt to it and I think that is something we should strive for. I can't get into exactly what we did with AI this year but I was extremely happy with how the offensive AI turned out. We have a solid foundation for it that we are going to really blow out in the future and we will build just as solid of a defensive side.


Ratings are something that play a big factor in how we do things and I do believe the 0-99 is the best route to go. The difference is frame count, basketball is about using as minimal movement to create the greatest amount of space possible. You try to get your defender off balance as much as possible and the defender has to recover as quickly as possible. Ratings play a factor in frame count of how quickly these actions can take place. Shooting percentages etc are all factored by the players rating as well as the defenders. You may not see a huge difference between 80-81 but there is a slight one. I think overall ratings are overrated personally, they really serve no purpose, it's the actual individual ratings that matter because that is how players measure up to one another in game. People get caught up in who has a better overall rating but that formula is so subjective, it's much easier to argue individual attribute ratings because you can use film and statistics and we have a way of measuring how a player is affected by those in game. I have no way of knowing how other games handle them but I can speak for ours. Steals for example are scaled speed wise based on how good your steal rating is, then your ball handling rating says how fast your guy protects against a steal attempt, this is how you distinguish the difference between a guard trying to rip Chris Paul which really happens never, and a guard ripping Noah if he is trying to take the ball down the court. When you factor frame count into everything it is always affected by roster updates so that is how we handle it. Rebounding is similar in how much coverage a player can cover to grab a board, better rebounders get more coverage based on ratings.

The offensive awareness is something I can't really get into at this point but it does matter in our game.

Shooting ratings again are affected by both players involved, you also have to time the shot to get that highest percent chance of making it. For the last questions I can say that through synergy, real AI, and fatigue we can accomplish a great, great, deal of realism. I can't say much more than that at the moment.

[benji]

I think overall ratings are overrated personally, they really serve no purpose, it's the actual individual ratings that matter because that is how players measure up to one another in game. People get caught up in who has a better overall rating but that formula is so subjective, it's much easier to argue individual attribute ratings because you can use film and statistics and we have a way of measuring how a player is affected by those in game.

You realize, of course, that you've unintentionally attached yourself to the irrational hobbyhorse of the guy who started the infamous Live 07 letter.

No overall ratings. Make it happen.

Steals for example are scaled speed wise based on how good your steal rating is, then your ball handling rating says how fast your guy protects against a steal attempt, this is how you distinguish the difference between a guard trying to rip Chris Paul which really happens never, and a guard ripping Noah if he is trying to take the ball down the court. When you factor frame count into everything it is always affected by roster updates so that is how we handle it. Rebounding is similar in how much coverage a player can cover to grab a board, better rebounders get more coverage based on ratings.

The offensive awareness is something I can't really get into at this point but it does matter in our game.

See, here's the thing. Compare these descriptions. I can suss out your steal explanation on my own because it makes sense and it's rationally how to do it. But the offensive awareness, some of the other ratings and stuff are just opaque. It's difficult for the player to establish a differential between players in that regard.

And your point on the 81/80 thing was poor wording on my part, I get the underlying nature of these differences, but to the player, are they noticeable? Do they serve to differentiate players and why are they superior to more raw numbers then? I brought up the 2K MyPlayer stuff because as you level through the players it's quite visible how little many of the ratings actually do matter to your own performance. And I can't speak to Elite 11 or Live 13 obviously, but past Live games, past 2K games, games in other franchises that no longer exist, all suffered from similar issues in making the players appear to be clear individuals when they're in your hands.

Part of my questions regarding AI and such were not about the process, I get the process, I want to figure out the philosophy you guys are applying to these issues. We've heard a lot of what you're saying before again and again, we've heard "oh, we can't talk about that but we want it great" and so on and so forth. I think an important point, and with you and Scott being gameplay designers I think it would do wonders to not talk in these vague cliches that every game developer uses but to dig down into the philosophical underpinning of the reasoning. You noted "three pointers are too easy" is too vague. You asked what happens when a 99 three point shooter is defended by a 99 shot blocker what should happen? What should a 99 rated shooter when he's wide open, don't you have the synergy numbers, why care about ratings, shouldn't it be based on a multi-year average of what the player actually shoots in that situation? But we don't know what your latest build does, you do. We can't go all the way back to Live 10 now and think that applies to what you're doing. We can't go to 2K either. We don't know what those values are inherently supposed to represent. The 99th percentile, the best five guys, etc.

Right, of course, you can't throw it to Dwight in every possession. In these games, I basically can. Of course you guys and the guys at VC want to make otherwise, but how? I don't know, you guys might not know, but there are ways to discuss these types of things so maybe someone on here or OS or GAF or elsewhere DOES know.

I can't speak to your actual situation, but from the outside you're in an unique situation with next gen coming and a bit of freedom from the standard 10ish month dev cycle. You can hopefully, as you noted, drill down to the essentials in a way the folks at VC can't do every year. What I want to know is unlike every other promise in gaming, or world history, how are you intending differently. In other words, what is your plan? What is your foundation?

I know I know, you can't say. THAT'S what needs to change. Basketball video games are not the Manhattan Project.

[Postgame]

I think overall ratings are overrated personally, they really serve no purpose, it's the actual individual ratings that matter because that is how players measure up to one another in game. People get caught up in who has a better overall rating but that formula is so subjective, it's much easier to argue individual attribute ratings because you can use film and statistics and we have a way of measuring how a player is affected by those in game.

You realize, of course, that you've unintentionally attached yourself to the irrational hobbyhorse of the guy who started the infamous Live 07 letter.

No overall ratings. Make it happen.

Steals for example are scaled speed wise based on how good your steal rating is, then your ball handling rating says how fast your guy protects against a steal attempt, this is how you distinguish the difference between a guard trying to rip Chris Paul which really happens never, and a guard ripping Noah if he is trying to take the ball down the court. When you factor frame count into everything it is always affected by roster updates so that is how we handle it. Rebounding is similar in how much coverage a player can cover to grab a board, better rebounders get more coverage based on ratings.

The offensive awareness is something I can't really get into at this point but it does matter in our game.

See, here's the thing. Compare these descriptions. I can suss out your steal explanation on my own because it makes sense and it's rationally how to do it. But the offensive awareness, some of the other ratings and stuff are just opaque. It's difficult for the player to establish a differential between players in that regard.

And your point on the 81/80 thing was poor wording on my part, I get the underlying nature of these differences, but to the player, are they noticeable? Do they serve to differentiate players and why are they superior to more raw numbers then? I brought up the 2K MyPlayer stuff because as you level through the players it's quite visible how little many of the ratings actually do matter to your own performance. And I can't speak to Elite 11 or Live 13 obviously, but past Live games, past 2K games, games in other franchises that no longer exist, all suffered from similar issues in making the players appear to be clear individuals when they're in your hands.

Part of my questions regarding AI and such were not about the process, I get the process, I want to figure out the philosophy you guys are applying to these issues. We've heard a lot of what you're saying before again and again, we've heard "oh, we can't talk about that but we want it great" and so on and so forth. I think an important point, and with you and Scott being gameplay designers I think it would do wonders to not talk in these vague cliches that every game developer uses but to dig down into the philosophical underpinning of the reasoning. You noted "three pointers are too easy" is too vague. You asked what happens when a 99 three point shooter is defended by a 99 shot blocker what should happen? What should a 99 rated shooter when he's wide open, don't you have the synergy numbers, why care about ratings, shouldn't it be based on a multi-year average of what the player actually shoots in that situation? But we don't know what your latest build does, you do. We can't go all the way back to Live 10 now and think that applies to what you're doing. We can't go to 2K either. We don't know what those values are inherently supposed to represent. The 99th percentile, the best five guys, etc.

Right, of course, you can't throw it to Dwight in every possession. In these games, I basically can. Of course you guys and the guys at VC want to make otherwise, but how? I don't know, you guys might not know, but there are ways to discuss these types of things so maybe someone on here or OS or GAF or elsewhere DOES know.

I can't speak to your actual situation, but from the outside you're in an unique situation with next gen coming and a bit of freedom from the standard 10ish month dev cycle. You can hopefully, as you noted, drill down to the essentials in a way the folks at VC can't do every year. What I want to know is unlike every other promise in gaming, or world history, how are you intending differently. In other words, what is your plan? What is your foundation?

I know I know, you can't say. THAT'S what needs to change. Basketball video games are not the Manhattan Project.

I wish I had control of overall ratings, but sadly I do not. I think the fear of backlash of their removal would be too much for some but I'll continue on that campaign for the good of all.


The problem with discussing offensive awareness and how it and synergy plays into things is because it is tied into offensive AI and how we plan on using them effectively. I guess I can answer your question with a question at this point and say "how would you expect a players Bball IQ to affect how they play?" answer that and you will probably be close to what we are trying to do.

ratings are handled similar to how you describe and our roster guy is a former community guy that breathes stats and NBA in general.

I want to not be vague, I really do. I don't know that it's always the best policy but there are reasons why we can't say certain things and I have no control over that unfortunately. I am not trying to sell anyone on anything, I want to make that clear. I'm here for flow of information and trying to establish as much of a relationship as I can with you guys. I can understand all the frustrations of the community but I do not have the power to correct all of them.

[benji]

The way I always put the overall rating argument is this, even though it's become increasingly dated. It prevents a player from giving Jalen Rose a max contract. Hell, it prevents much of Billy King's entire career.

The problem with discussing offensive awareness and how it and synergy plays into things is because it is tied into offensive AI and how we plan on using them effectively. I guess I can answer your question with a question at this point and say "how would you expect a players Bball IQ to affect how they play?" answer that and you will probably be close to what we are trying to do.

That gets back to my example of Shane Battier though. Traditionally a player of his type would have maybe above average offensive awareness if that, even though probably any casual evaluation would rank him as one of the smartest players in the league. If OffAware just modifies the offensive ratings why not just create greater strata within those ratings and leave OffAware to that IQ situation. So the player spaces better, moves better, etc. Traditionally the rating has not really done this.

I hope you can see the point I'm trying to make about some of these more subjective ratings and how they appear to the player. Even if they are affecting things within the game.

I, of course, have no idea how you are implementing it currently.

ratings are handled similar to how you describe and our roster guy is a former community guy that breathes stats and NBA in general.

huh

[Nick]

Both from a business point of view, and also from a huge NBA fan (from Malta in Europe) I wouldn't scrap all the work done on NBA Live 13. The best thing to do now for EA Sports is look at the Market....and guess what ?? Is there any 'Fifa Manager 13' type of basketball game around ?? The answer is NO!! So, if EA Sports failed in Simulation NBA games, it should work on getting the best NBA Management game ever !! I've been longing to have such a game for so long. Now EA Sports have the NBA license, the player models are there, the courts, cyberfaces and other graphics are all there...they should just work on the Management area of the game (like drafts, contracts, training, sponsors,match dynamics like in Fifa Manager etc)...and produce the best ever NBA Management game !! What do you think Andrew and all those reading my comment ?

I am with you 100% on that one. For years i have wished for an NBA version of Football Manager or FIFA manager. I would totally fall in love with EA if they focused purely on a management mode and made it amazingly deep and awesome. But as Andrew said - unfortunately there may not be enough of a market that share this wish for EA to deem it a profitable route to pursue.

Interesting dialogue currently being created between benji and Postgame here. *grabs popcorn* Some key issues getting looked at.

our roster guy is a former community guy that breathes stats and NBA in general.

How has benji had time to post at these forums if he works for EA??

[Postgame]

The way I always put the overall rating argument is this, even though it's become increasingly dated. It prevents a player from giving Jalen Rose a max contract. Hell, it prevents much of Billy King's entire career.

The problem with discussing offensive awareness and how it and synergy plays into things is because it is tied into offensive AI and how we plan on using them effectively. I guess I can answer your question with a question at this point and say "how would you expect a players Bball IQ to affect how they play?" answer that and you will probably be close to what we are trying to do.

That gets back to my example of Shane Battier though. Traditionally a player of his type would have maybe above average offensive awareness if that, even though probably any casual evaluation would rank him as one of the smartest players in the league. If OffAware just modifies the offensive ratings why not just create greater strata within those ratings and leave OffAware to that IQ situation. So the player spaces better, moves better, etc. Traditionally the rating has not really done this.

I hope you can see the point I'm trying to make about some of these more subjective ratings and how they appear to the player. Even if they are affecting things within the game.

I, of course, have no idea how you are implementing it currently.

ratings are handled similar to how you describe and our roster guy is a former community guy that breathes stats and NBA in general.

huh

You are touching on what it essentially does in our game, i can't say much more than that. It doesn't affect other ratings, it has a purpose of it's own similar to what you are asking for.


As for the second statement I was commenting on how you described ratings should be somewhat of an average of past years ratings, our ratings guy handles it just that way. He eats, breathes, and lives stats, and not just the most recent years stats.

[shadowgrin]

our roster guy is a former community guy that breathes stats and NBA in general.

He eats, breathes, and lives stats, and not just the most recent years stats.

Now you intrigue me. Who. Is. He?

[Patr1ck]

our roster guy is a former community guy that breathes stats and NBA in general.

He eats, breathes, and lives stats, and not just the most recent years stats.

Now you intrigue me. Who. Is. He?

Why the 2K insider of course!

[22cedric]

You can't really blame us for having posts dripping with sarcasm, I understand it's frustrating for you as a team member, but it's equally frustrating for us as customers when there are things we love about the franchise which seem to be taken out and never added back wishlist after wishlist. I understand the whole A-B-C principle, but something like in game saves can't be added?

Not to mention this is the first time in what seems like forever there is actual community interaction. Not just a meet & greet with a select few (which is a positive btw) and submitting wishlists never to get any to little feedback on them.

We've been submitting wishlists since god knows when, this is the first time I've read anyone say "hey asshat, be more specific please?"

I hope you guys manage an amazing game whenever one is released, I appreciate your effort & hard work and hope I will be enticed enough to buy it again.

I don't blame anyone at all for being disappointed, I am disappointed myself. I can understand the frustrations of the community completely. There are plenty of legitimate gripes but one of the things I want to accomplish is to inform you guys as much as I am allowed and raise awareness of how things are viewed from our stand point so we limit the misunderstandings and bad communication of years past. When it comes to features being removed and not added back i cant speak to years past because i wasn't there to know the reasoning behind it. I can tell you that our approach is to make sure we get A right before B etc. in our case we could go two routes, lots of features done to half quality or few features done to great quality. I think most would say get the essentials right first. We all would love to say do both, but with the amount of work and limited time it was an either, or. We are faced with a lot of tough decisions, ones that I can't really elaborate on, trust me that no one gets more angry about a feature getting cut than the designer who worked on it. If it was up to us the game would never ship because we would want to add feature after feature because we are never satisfied but unfortunately time limits us and we have to at some point say ok next year we get this in.

In game saves are something that is on the radar and it wasn't an A,B,C problem as much as it was an either, or problem. I cant get into the nuts and bolts of it but there was a lot that goes into it believe it or not.

Wishlists may not have been responded to but they are often times read. I know that communication has not always been the best. I can't speak for the old studio or team and how they handled it but I can tell you that Scott and I will be around to answer as much as we can. I want us to be judged on what we have done and will do and not on years past, obviously it was a big let down not shipping but we are a dedicated team and we will be back strong. We can only say so much, there are plenty of times I would love to answer questions but my hands are tied, more often than not when you hear nothing from development it is for that very reason. We are a team of people very passionate about basketball, and I think at times the view of our team has been nowhere near that. I hope to change that by speaking with you guys.

Scott & Postgame I want NBA Live to succeed but NBA Live 14 will have to be a full fledged title that will compete with NBA 2K right out the gate.

[macbookproi5]

Don't release the game anymore

[NovU]

Having played Live series since 90s, I was excited to hear Live series making a comeback and I even went to the playtest here in GVA. So it saddens me a little to hear it got cancelled. It's cool to see developer(s) in our forum though.

On the topic of ratings, I should say probably most sports games in general have it somewhat biased than not. Say for instance, can't say am pleased with 2K13 player ratings. But they are probably more or less on par with casual fans' expectations, which still doesn't make it truly 'sim' enough for many of us. I mean it has Carmelo(& Kobe 4th best? lol) in the same mix with Chris Paul, when in reality, there absolutely is no good justification to this.

[shadowgrin]

On the topic of ratings, I should say probably most sports games in general have it somewhat biased than not. Say for instance, can't say am pleased with 2K13 player ratings. But they are probably more or less on par with casual fans' expectations, which still doesn't make it truly 'sim' enough for many of us. I mean it has Carmelo(& Kobe 4th best? lol) in the same mix with Chris Paul, when in reality, there absolutely is no good justification to this.

Why does it matter if Carmelo's and Kobe's overall ratings make them in the same mix as Chris Paul when it's the individual ratings that really matter and comparing or separating players based on overall ratings is not really truly 'sim' at all like you want it to.

I think overall ratings are overrated personally, they really serve no purpose, it's the actual individual ratings that matter because that is how players measure up to one another in game. People get caught up in who has a better overall rating but that formula is so subjective, it's much easier to argue individual attribute ratings because you can use film and statistics and we have a way of measuring how a player is affected by those in game.

I wish I had control of overall ratings, but sadly I do not. I think the fear of backlash of their removal would be too much for some

The way I always put the overall rating argument is this, even though it's become increasingly dated. It prevents a player from giving Jalen Rose a max contract. Hell, it prevents much of Billy King's entire career.

Why the 2K insider of course!

Oh, that idiot.
'X player has three consecutive games where he shot well from 3, let's give him 90+ rating for 3-pointers in the next roster update even though player X has been mediocre shooting the 3 for his entire career!'

Don't release the game anymore

This guy thinks the same way too.

And what I am about to write here, I would say in their presence: EA Sports should junk its NBA simulation. Just get out of it and this license altogether. There is no upside to kicking the NBA Live can another year down the road, for either management or labor. Two straight efforts at publishing an NBA simulation have failed, which didn't even happen in the days when games were sold on cartridges. It only gets worse from here.

This is a publicly traded company that has eaten three years' worth of development costs on a multimillion-dollar license while publishing no game. Meanwhile its competitor, 2K Sports, at a fraction of the size, under corporate leadership that would jettison a licensed project at the first sign of trouble, has run out three consecutive white-hot excellent, year-round sales leaders, because anything less would mean the end of all their jobs.

Though an EA Sports spokesman insisted the entire NBA Live series has not been canceled, only this year's game, I think there's another reckoning to come in the form of the company's next quarterly earnings call. Last time they got on the phone with investors, the stock price was at a five-year low. It's not much better now.

[Dreamer4321]

RE: POSTGAME

I just wanted to know if you guys at the nba live development team are aware about the poor net physics of every single nba live game in the past. Is it so difficult and time-consuming to make realistic net aninations? The net in nba live games moves as if it's made of steel.
Thanks

[NovU]

On the topic of ratings, I should say probably most sports games in general have it somewhat biased than not. Say for instance, can't say am pleased with 2K13 player ratings. But they are probably more or less on par with casual fans' expectations, which still doesn't make it truly 'sim' enough for many of us. I mean it has Carmelo(& Kobe 4th best? lol) in the same mix with Chris Paul, when in reality, there absolutely is no good justification to this.

Why does it matter if Carmelo's and Kobe's overall ratings make them in the same mix as Chris Paul when it's the individual ratings that really matter and comparing or separating players based on overall ratings is not really truly 'sim' at all like you want it to.

Meh, while the notion that 'players overall rating don't matter but how they should play' is true, still the rating is a reflection of value measured and relates to how good players can perform in the game. And 2K ratings rely on popularity than actual statistics anyways.

[shadowgrin]

Meh, while the notion that 'players overall rating don't matter but how they should play' is true, still the rating is a reflection of value measured and relates to how good players can perform in the game.

Not unless there is a flaw or deficiency on how that value is measured then it doesn't really reflect how good the player is, which is the case for the overall rating or even individual attributes that contribute to the value of the the overall rating such as defense, basketball I.Q., 'hustle', 'clutch', and others.

[benji]

The thing is the overall ratings in most Live games were accurate in that regard because of how much the game overvalues speed, jumping, etc.

Steve Francis shouldn't have been a 90 overall except for the fact that if you used him he was dominant because of those things.

Even if in the real NBA...

[fjccommish]

"The truth is we face a great number of much tougher decisions than that one, and that one to me is a no-brainer that you go with feature (A). When you are building a foundation you have to put all these things into perspective and realize that we want the same things you guys do but we are constantly strapped for time"

Shoes vs realistic play. Real looking players vs realistic play.