Revamped Overall Formula for NBA 2K15 Player Ratings Explained

[sniapeko]

Reading this thread, the only thing I can think of is, will the OVR value still be the only thing the CPU cares about when setting its own rotations or when discussing a trade or a contract?
And will this new formula be applied on old gen or only on Ps4/XBone?

[Hassan Darkside]

Quote: Originally Posted by bedwardsroy19

We will be elaborating on this in the future, this was just to add some perspective in the ratings that are being released. But in the past, player's overall rating by position was calculated by a singular formula. In 2K15 there are many different formulas that are calculated that will look at certain individual attributes with more weight than others to account for different player types. Of those formulas the highest Overall is selected. The overall formula from games past is still there, but many other formulas are being calculated to accurately display the overall worth of a player who specializes in a certain part of the game. In years past many claimed Overall ratings "mean nothing". This year they should. Player's Overall rating should finally be the point of debates.

So as a player's individual attributes progress (or regress), does the formula continue to recalculate and thus, it would be possible for the player type to change simply based off of that?

[MarkWilliam]

Complex - but I'm wrapping my head around it.... definitely sounds interesting and I feel positive about it (considering I could understand it a touch more).....


Definitely have to throw props to the mind that devised this. As if I am understanding it correctly, definitely sounds complex yet simple.....


Sounds to me there is a series of ratings which contribute to a player - more so, to his player type (based on his position). Which ever "player type" his ratings point towards in the highest regard (in terms of overall rating) is what he is essentially defined as.....


If I haven't gotten that right, then I am sure a future explanation will do so down the road..... but none the less, I am excited either way.


NBA 2K15 = Vast! And a lot of things will push it towards sim/realism from what we know thus far..... very exciting....

[MarkWilliam]

Quote: Originally Posted by Ruff Ryder

So as a player's individual attributes progress (or regress), does the formula continue to recalculate and thus, it would be possible for the player type to change simply based off of that?

If I understand it correctly, this sounds right. And it is great - as a player ages and his ratings change, his role (or player type) changes.


This is fantastic if this is correct - it really would allow users to see how a player changes over his career. I'm thinking Scottie Pippen in his prime to how he was in his late Portland days, off the top of my head.


Again, this is IF I understand it right....

[Real2KInsider]

Quote: Originally Posted by Boilerbuzz

Frankly, I want to see overalls gone completely. It's a bs metric for people too lazy to really evaluate a player. Dirk is a prime example of a great player that shouldn't have a high overall rating. There a many players that would have crap overall, but every team would want them.

It's not for people to evaluate a player. It's for the CPU to evaluate a player.

Dirk has a crap overall because 2K's formula has been broken for a long time (barely giving weight to outside shooting when it's value to PFs is painfully obvious).

[Real2KInsider]

Quote: Originally Posted by bedwardsroy19

Not exactly, and this post should address other confusion in the thread: For every player, their individual ratings will run through all of the overall formulas possible for a given position. Whichever formula generates the highest overall is what is displayed in the roster. The individual attributes matter more than ever in determining a players overall.

As an example then to see i I understand correctly.

I have Jason Smith (PF/C) rated at the following positions

PG: 58
SG: 66
SF: 72
PF: 71
C: 68

What you are roughly saying is that he will rate 72 Overall (his SF rating) even if I have him at center, because that is his peak value across all of the formulas.

[Hassan Darkside]

Quote: Originally Posted by Rashidi

As an example then to see i I understand correctly. I have Jason Smith (PF/C) rated at the following positions PG: 58 SG: 66 SF: 72 PF: 71 C: 68 What you are roughly saying is that he will rate 72 Overall (his SF rating) even if I have him at center, because that is his peak value across all of the formulas.

I understood it more as based off of a player type formula such as:
Rebounding: 66
Face Up: 70
Back to Basket: 68
Athletic: 65

And then it would choose his overall as a 70.

My other question now (assuming I'm understanding this correctly) is will you get an accurate depiction of regression? If a guy like, say, Paul George, who may be an 88 overall as an "all-around" SF regresses in his offensive ratings, will the formula recalculate and still have him at an 88 overall because he may now be an 88 as a defensive player type but an 86 as an all-around?

[DaBoyBk]

Quote: Originally Posted by Rashidi

As an example then to see i I understand correctly. I have Jason Smith (PF/C) rated at the following positions PG: 58 SG: 66 SF: 72 PF: 71 C: 68 What you are roughly saying is that he will rate 72 Overall (his SF rating) even if I have him at center, because that is his peak value across all of the formulas.

Quote: Originally Posted by Ruff Ryder

I understood it more as based off of a player type formula such as: Rebounding: 66 Face Up: 70 Back to Basket: 68 Athletic: 65 And then it would choose his overall as a 70. My other question now (assuming I'm understanding this correctly) is will you get an accurate depiction of regression? If a guy like, say, Paul George, who may be an 88 overall as an "all-around" SF regresses in his offensive ratings, will the formula recalculate and still have him at an 88 overall because he may now be an 88 as a defensive player type but an 86 as an all-around?

Man... @Rashidi @RuffRyder and all others here I think we need @bedwardsroy19 to get a little more in depth hopefully soon as we still dont have a definitive idea of what this new formula means or how its calculated