NBA 2K13 Complete Player Ratings and Classic Teams

[Streaky McFloorburn]

The 84-85 Sixers were already a borderline joke with Dr. J, as they were one of only 2 classic teams missing 2 starters, and had the fewest real players by 1 vs. any other classic team. Unless some player(s) have been added to replace him, I don't see the point of a classic "team" with only 2 of their starters and 6 real players total, when every other classic team has at least 8.

[VDusen04]

Quote: Originally Posted by Streaky McFloorburn

The 84-85 Sixers were already a borderline joke with Dr. J, as they were one of only 2 classic teams missing 2 starters, and had the fewest real players by 1 vs. any other classic team. Unless some player(s) have been added to replace him, I don't see the point of a classic "team" with only 2 of their starters and 6 real players total, when every other classic team has at least 8.

I'll still take it, as it at least provides us with an authentic classic 80's 76ers court. Further, since it looks like classic teams are editable out of the box this year, for those looking to complete that '85 team with created players, we're six players closer to making that happen.

[iNolaNightmare]

Quote: Originally Posted by ManhattanBeachLakers

I'm on 2k's side on this one, Anderson does NOTHING except shoot 3's and rebound a tiny bit. Horrible defender and shot blocker, what did you want 2k to do, boost the stuff that he's not good at?

16 PPG & 8 RPG with a whining, hurt Dwightmare and a mediocre team and a mess surrounding him. One of the highest PER's in the game with a 21. Consistent and durable, as well.

[Streaky McFloorburn]

Quote: Originally Posted by VDusen04

I'll still take it, as it at least provides us with an authentic classic 80's 76ers court. Further, since it looks like classic teams are editable out of the box this year, for those looking to complete that '85 team with created players, we're six players closer to making that happen.

If a court and a few random players constitutes a classic team, why not add more of the ones that fans have been clamoring for? If the standard for a classic team is only 6 licensed players, they should be able to spread the love a bit more, don't you think? If CAPs are okay with most people, why not save money by not licensing any players, and just pay for more historic courts and unis?

I agree that there is no harm in including the team, because there appears to be no challenge mode for classics this year, but having to beat the Bucks with every one of their key players in place, by using Moses Malone to score 80% of the points? That doesn't feel like a "classic" matchup to me.

Do I even need to mention online? I thought that we could use classic teams this year. Including one that will probably not get any run seems silly.

I know that the devs are not responsible for anyone's personality quirks, but I'd rather not be driven to obsession by a roster with only half its players. "Just download from 2k share" you might say, but most CAPs look terrible. Every classic 86 Celtics roster I dl'd in 2k11 had a CAP Bill Walton that looked like he did on the 77 Blazers. I wasn't on OS then, so hopefully I can get some better advice on which rosters to use now, but there's nothing more frustrating to me than knowing I either have to ignore something I care about, or put hours into fixing it myself.

It's the same problem whether you care about rosters, player faces, hairstyles, accessories, or any other detail that takes away from the game's realism when it's done halfway. I haven't complained about any of those issues before, but this seemed like the perfect place to take a stand, because the team is exactly halfway done. Is 50% accuracy really a standard you're willing to accept? (Maybe as a metaphor for FG%?)

[aliplayer786]

looks like the first day i get the game i gotta fix the ratings myself

[martymcflyy85]

Don't forget that in 2k12, if you were able to download the early "glitch" roster you had access to all of the 45 players that were in the legends showcase DLC. These include players like Kevin Johnson, Dan Majerle, Tom Chambers, Kenny Anderson, Glen Rice, Jalen Rose, Steve Smith, Mark Jackson, Dale Ellis, not to mention young vince carter, young tracy Mcgrady, etc.

Even if Dr J, Kareem and Webber were somehow included, the fact that 2k isn't making these other players available in some sort of fashion has made my decision easy. I too am one who belongs to the group that classic rosters were their main draw.

[VDusen04]

Quote: Originally Posted by Streaky McFloorburn

If a court and a few random players constitutes a classic team, why not add more of the ones that fans have been clamoring for? If the standard for a classic team is only 6 licensed players, they should be able to spread the love a bit more, don't you think? If CAPs are okay with most people, why not save money by not licensing any players, and just pay for more historic courts and unis? I agree that there is no harm in including the team, because there appears to be no challenge mode for classics this year, but having to beat the Bucks with every one of their key players in place, by using Moses Malone to score 80% of the points? That doesn't feel like a "classic" matchup to me. Do I even need to mention online? I thought that we could use classic teams this year. Including one that will probably not get any run seems silly. I know that the devs are not responsible for anyone's personality quirks, but I'd rather not be driven to obsession by a roster with only half its players. "Just download from 2k share" you might say, but most CAPs look terrible. Every classic 86 Celtics roster I dl'd in 2k11 had a CAP Bill Walton that looked like he did on the 77 Blazers. I wasn't on OS then, so hopefully I can get some better advice on which rosters to use now, but there's nothing more frustrating to me than knowing I either have to ignore something I care about, or put hours into fixing it myself. It's the same problem whether you care about rosters, player faces, hairstyles, accessories, or any other detail that takes away from the game's realism when it's done halfway. I haven't complained about any of those issues before, but this seemed like the perfect place to take a stand, because the team is exactly halfway done. Is 50% accuracy really a standard you're willing to accept? (Maybe as a metaphor for FG%?)

I think you may have misinterpreted what I was saying here. Five of the classic teams added by 2K in NBA 2K12 were the 2002 Sacramento Kings, the 1987 Los Angeles Lakers, the 1985 76ers, the 1977 76ers and the 1971 Milwaukee Bucks. Among them, well over 40 individual classic players were accounted for, including an extremely high percentage of regular rotation players.

Even in 2K12, people were left a little flummoxed with the inclusion of the '85 Sixers, for without Charles Barkley it seems as if they would have been better off making an '83 team. The presumption was 2K may have been on the verge of signing Barkley or believed they could sign him, thus leading to a preemptive classic Sixers squad. Then, Barkley's absence, combined with Andrew Toney's, made for a pretty empty classic team. Each of the other teams mentioned though, were mostly only missing 9-12th men - the Mateen Cleaves and Marv Winkler's of the world. As such, we were pretty solid on that front. I had to create my own Chucky Brown? So be it. It was still a pretty full set of five awesome classic teams.

Now we have NBA 2K13 on the horizon. All signs point toward a few big stars bowing out for the new edition: Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Chris Webber, and Julius Erving. All the teams these players were a part of, were already created last year by 2K, when the rosters (except for the '85 squad) were mostly full. I'm saying, I'm glad 2K at least decided to retain the rosters and teams they put together last year and didn't pull a jerk move of unnecessarily pulling them out just because a few stars didn't sign. Even without the three mentioned, those teams still account for 40 classic players. It seems it would have taken more work to eliminate those teams from the game than it would have to keep them in just in case folks opted to create the missing stars and fill out the squads again (which I'm certain scores of gamers most definitely will do).

Point being, it's not as if 2K's just saying, "Hey, we can't get the rights to Alex English, Kiki Vandeweghe, or Fat Lever. Let's make a 1988 Nuggets team anyway." The teams we're talking about were full (again, except for the '85 Sixers) and instead of randomly ridding of all those other players who played on those teams (Darryl Dawkins, Joe Dandridge, Oscar Robertson, and Kurt Rambis among them), 2K kept them around because they figured if they made them last year and they still had them, why not share them with us in spite of the superstars apparently deciding to not sign back on again?

It would have been cool to have the Chris Webber back on that '02 Kings squad again this year. But now, since 2K didn't axe the team they'd already put together, I'm just one solid Chris Webber create-a-player away from having a full team again. And I'd much rather have that than having to create 8 Kings myself and then use them on the modern Kings court, having to pretend they're using the early 2000's floor.

[youALREADYknow]

The fact that ratings are changing this much from pre-release to release day is as good of a sign as you'll find to let you know that nothing has changed as far as rosters are concerned.

If there was anything objective or data-driven about these, then there would be little to no change from then to now since ZERO games have been played since the early summer.

Sad, but expected. Still don't know why that STATS logo is even in the game.