Revamped Overall Formula for NBA 2K15 Player Ratings Explained

[Leftos]

Let me take a stab at clearing up the confusion although Rashidi pretty much has it down.

Each Position has a set of Archetypes (or Player Types, if you will). All-Around, Athletic, Defensive, etc. A player has an overall per player type per position. So a player has (NumberOfPositions * NumberOfPlayerTypesPerPosition) overall ratings. Each Positional Player Type has its own overall formula (so PG All Around has a different formula than PF All Around has a different formula than C Defensive).

Whenever his overall rating gets updated, we calculate all the overall ratings for his position by player type. The player type that gives him his the highest overall is the one we determine "most compatible", so we assign it to him along with that Overall.

So yes, a player that might be C All-Around but as years go by sees his offensive attributes regress but you've made sure to keep him up to par defensively using (cheap plug but I'm a dev) our new in-season Training system, might see his player type change to C Defensive, and his value to the team will still be there.

As for team-building AI, we've taken some steps to make sure teams take into account specific needs as far as more specific skills go. So if that player losing his offensive ability means that the team lost their main source of points, they'll value players that can bring the team's scoring up more than players that might be contributing to needs sufficiently covered (such as defense, in this example). (Let me clarify that the examples of "offense" and "defense" are shallow and the "skills" teams look at go beyond that; there's 13 different categories actually.)

That said, Team Style is still a factor, so teams won't all "average out" by trying to cover skill needs, if a coach prefers to play a certain way. So if a team prefers outside scorers over inside scorers, it won't value inside scorers as much, even if it has more of a need for them than another team.

Also, we pay much more attention at position stacking which has been a problem for years in the franchise. Teams are much more aware of trying to build each position with a player of starter quality, a decent bench player and a 3rd string backup (less important but good to have). Not every team is going to be perfect, and if they were, they wouldn't be able to replicate my frustration with Detroit's roster all these past years. :P More than 3 players in a position starts making teams reconsider unless their skills and secondary position mean that they're of significant value to the team. No more "Oh, another 80+ point guard available? Never mind that we have 5 of them already, let's get one more since we can fit him under the salary cap!" I cringed so bad when someone showed me a screenshot of that and I made a point of starting to fix that logic that very same day.

You can see how a system like this gets really complicated. I'm very happy with our new overall formulas and logic this year, and along with the improvements to team-building (which isn't going to be perfect but we've taken strides in the right direction, trust me) gives us nice results and a nice base to continue working off of based on this year's feedback.

A lot of things have been changed this year, so I'm really looking forward to fresh feedback once you get your hands on the game.

[PPerfect_CJ]

Quote: Originally Posted by thedream2k13

How does this work with one dimensional players like Reggie Evans? His rebounding will give him higher overall in 2k15 than in 2k14? Seems like a lot of debates will come with this new system with basically all players ranging from 70 to 89

That is a GREAT example. Wouldn't that higher overall (only due to rebounding) push his salary up too high in free agency?

[eaciv973]

Quote: Originally Posted by PPerfect_CJ

That is a GREAT example. Wouldn't that higher overall (only due to rebounding) push his salary up too high in free agency?

All depends on the team willing to pick him up in FA. If the team values a higher rated rebounder, they will pay for a high rated rebounder.

[PPerfect_CJ]

Quote: Originally Posted by bedwardsroy19

I'm not sure where this assumption is coming from. As I've said a few times in the thread, there are a variety of Overall formulas that are now being calculated per position to better represent unique players that may not be all around players for their position. These players are still very valuable to a team and in 2K15 their rating will reflect that value

Beds, I've always been one of your biggest supporters, so I know that if you have enough say, things will turn out great. I guess my question would be, how would this affect starting lineups? CPU auto lineups, to be more precise. Best example I can think of is Manu auto-starting with the Spurs because of the higher overall than Green. Been like that for years even though he should be coming off the bench. Will it STILL be that way, or will this new system fix that? Thanks man and congrats once again.

[PPerfect_CJ]

Quote: Originally Posted by eaciv973

All depends on the team willing to pick him up in FA. If the team values a higher rated rebounder, they will pay for a high rated rebounder.

But the way I'm reading it, and I could be way off, what if he has say, an 85 on rebounds. If his OVERALL is an 85 because of that, would his salary be like an 85 player that would actually DESERVE that kind of big money. Like I said, I may be confused on this. Just trying to figure out how it would work. Might be a wait and see kinda thing. Lol!

[rbfn04]

Quote: Originally Posted by Leftos

Let me take a stab at clearing up the confusion although Rashidi pretty much has it down. Each Position has a set of Archetypes (or Player Types, if you will). All-Around, Athletic, Defensive, etc. A player has an overall per player type per position. So a player has (NumberOfPositions * NumberOfPlayerTypesPerPosition) overall ratings. Each Positional Player Type has its own overall formula (so PG All Around has a different formula than PF All Around has a different formula than C Defensive). Whenever his overall rating gets updated, we calculate all the overall ratings for his position by player type. The player type that gives him his the highest overall is the one we determine "most compatible", so we assign it to him along with that Overall. So yes, a player that might be C All-Around but as years go by sees his offensive attributes regress but you've made sure to keep him up to par defensively using (cheap plug but I'm a dev) our new in-season Training system, might see his player type change to C Defensive, and his value to the team will still be there. As for team-building AI, we've taken some steps to make sure teams take into account specific needs as far as more specific skills go. So if that player losing his offensive ability means that the team lost their main source of points, they'll value players that can bring the team's scoring up more than players that might be contributing to needs sufficiently covered (such as defense, in this example). (Let me clarify that the examples of "offense" and "defense" are shallow and the "skills" teams look at go beyond that; there's 13 different categories actually.) That said, Team Style is still a factor, so teams won't all "average out" by trying to cover skill needs, if a coach prefers to play a certain way. So if a team prefers outside scorers over inside scorers, it won't value inside scorers as much, even if it has more of a need for them than another team. Also, we pay much more attention at position stacking which has been a problem for years in the franchise. Teams are much more aware of trying to build each position with a player of starter quality, a decent bench player and a 3rd string backup (less important but good to have). Not every team is going to be perfect, and if they were, they wouldn't be able to replicate my frustration with Detroit's roster all these past years. :P More than 3 players in a position starts making teams reconsider unless their skills and secondary position mean that they're of significant value to the team. No more "Oh, another 80+ point guard available? Never mind that we have 5 of them already, let's get one more since we can fit him under the salary cap!" I cringed so bad when someone showed me a screenshot of that and I made a point of starting to fix that logic that very same day. You can see how a system like this gets really complicated. I'm very happy with our new overall formulas and logic this year, and along with the improvements to team-building (which isn't going to be perfect but we've taken strides in the right direction, trust me) gives us nice results and a nice base to continue working off of based on this year's feedback. A lot of things have been changed this year, so I'm really looking forward to fresh feedback once you get your hands on the game.

So system DOES matter.

[jeebs9]

That first post sounds so goood!! I can't wait to actually play it!!

[threattonature]

Quote: Originally Posted by Leftos

Let me take a stab at clearing up the confusion although Rashidi pretty much has it down. Each Position has a set of Archetypes (or Player Types, if you will). All-Around, Athletic, Defensive, etc. A player has an overall per player type per position. So a player has (NumberOfPositions * NumberOfPlayerTypesPerPosition) overall ratings. Each Positional Player Type has its own overall formula (so PG All Around has a different formula than PF All Around has a different formula than C Defensive). Whenever his overall rating gets updated, we calculate all the overall ratings for his position by player type. The player type that gives him his the highest overall is the one we determine "most compatible", so we assign it to him along with that Overall. So yes, a player that might be C All-Around but as years go by sees his offensive attributes regress but you've made sure to keep him up to par defensively using (cheap plug but I'm a dev) our new in-season Training system, might see his player type change to C Defensive, and his value to the team will still be there. As for team-building AI, we've taken some steps to make sure teams take into account specific needs as far as more specific skills go. So if that player losing his offensive ability means that the team lost their main source of points, they'll value players that can bring the team's scoring up more than players that might be contributing to needs sufficiently covered (such as defense, in this example). (Let me clarify that the examples of "offense" and "defense" are shallow and the "skills" teams look at go beyond that; there's 13 different categories actually.) That said, Team Style is still a factor, so teams won't all "average out" by trying to cover skill needs, if a coach prefers to play a certain way. So if a team prefers outside scorers over inside scorers, it won't value inside scorers as much, even if it has more of a need for them than another team. Also, we pay much more attention at position stacking which has been a problem for years in the franchise. Teams are much more aware of trying to build each position with a player of starter quality, a decent bench player and a 3rd string backup (less important but good to have). Not every team is going to be perfect, and if they were, they wouldn't be able to replicate my frustration with Detroit's roster all these past years. :P More than 3 players in a position starts making teams reconsider unless their skills and secondary position mean that they're of significant value to the team. No more "Oh, another 80+ point guard available? Never mind that we have 5 of them already, let's get one more since we can fit him under the salary cap!" I cringed so bad when someone showed me a screenshot of that and I made a point of starting to fix that logic that very same day. You can see how a system like this gets really complicated. I'm very happy with our new overall formulas and logic this year, and along with the improvements to team-building (which isn't going to be perfect but we've taken strides in the right direction, trust me) gives us nice results and a nice base to continue working off of based on this year's feedback. A lot of things have been changed this year, so I'm really looking forward to fresh feedback once you get your hands on the game.

Sounds great and like it will definitely address a lot of issues that I have had with computer roster building logic. At this point I have been convinced that I'm buying the game regardless and am loving all the work and thought that seems to have gone into the myleague/myGM modes.

Will the 13 different categories that teams take into account be addressed at some point? Will their be GM ratings that factor into how competent the teams are at putting together a roster? With you being a Detroit fan, if there are GM ratings will there be a Joe Dumars hidden in the game with an F rating? Also will this team building logic be taken into account for fantasy drafts as well?