Home
NBA 2K15 News Post


Promoted from Forums to homepage, written by Mike Stauffer, NBA 2K Production Assistant for rosters and ratings.

As NBA 2K15 Overall ratings are released, I think it is important to point out that NBA 2K15 will feature a revamped formula to determine a player's overall rating. This year a player's overall rating will be determined by what "type" of player they are. By having more dynamic overall rating formulas it allows for players who are highly valued by teams to have a more representative "Overall" rating. Specialists such as great defenders, shooters, and rebounders will have an overall value that properly displays their worth to an NBA team.

The goal of the newly calculated Overall formulas is to as accurately as possible show a player's value in the NBA. The new formula will really highlight those players that play a very important role on their team, but may not be the prototypical player at their position. All players in the NBA provide some sort of value to their team, and the revamped Overall formulas should really illustrate that in NBA 2K15.

(More details below, as Mike answers questions from the community.)

So if I have two SG's with identical attributes but one is a "Defensive" and the other is "3PT" they will produce two different overalls?

Mike: Good question! No, the individual ratings will determine what player type (per position) to use.

If a player gets traded to another team, does the overall change?

Mike: No. It is 100% based on a player's attributes.

So basically what you are saying is that the 2K ratings being released paint an incomplete picture without releasing the player types as well?

Mike: 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.


Can you could elaborate as to what are some of the overall formulas possible for a given position might be based on?

Mike: 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.


It sounds like they are just removing the filter of position in determining overall rating. Essentially- ratings will be calculated pretty much the same, but instead of a given player's position dictating which of the 5 potential overalls they receive (either pg,sg,sf,pf, or c overall) they tweaked it so a players overall is the highest of the 5 formulas. They simply eliminated a position penalty and put the onus on the ratings. I don't think it's as in depth and evolved as some of you are guessing.

Mike: 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.

Just added these comments from Leftos.

Each Position has a set of Archetypes (or Player Types, if you will). All-Around, Athletic, Defensive, etc. Some positions share some of them, some have some unique ones too. 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.

Game: NBA 2K15Reader Score: 8/10 - Vote Now
Platform: iOS / PC / PS3 / PS4 / Xbox 360 / Xbox OneVotes for game: 64 - View All
NBA 2K15 Videos
Member Comments
# 81 thedream2k13 @ 09/05/14 12:13 AM
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
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
 
# 82 ronyell @ 09/05/14 01:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by threattonature
It is what teams do now when searching for free agents, just making blind guesses over who will fit into the style they play. My thought is more for myleague/myteam. Each team should have their own variables they look for to calculate the overall rating based on a system. Most coaches have a basic system in place rather it's more uptempo, pick and roll, 3 point shooting, inside/out. So the data that would drive their value in different systems are their existing ratings.




What I'm suggesting is just using the existing attributes and the system would determine the overall. So a player with high speed, quickness, jumping, steals would rate higher in an uptempo system or be more valuable in that type of system compared to being in a Spurs or Memphis system where that athleticism would not matter near as much. Basically what I'm suggesting is a way to give different teams, a more distinct identity and style.




Which teams do you think don't have an identifiable system? I think especially now with the SportVu tracking so much data that it's definitely possible to gather what type of style each team plays and what types of skillsets would fit in each one.



I do agree with how everything works it would be extremely complicated but eventually could tie any many different factors. The way I see it could possibly work long term is in myGM it could affect the type of coaches that each owner would hire. The coach based on the system he's running can determine which players they attempt to go after in free agency and on the flip side and play a factor in free agents determining what team they choose to sign with.

I think the one thing missing in association mode is teams having individual personalities or styles after a year or two because they're all going after the same players based off the same overalls.
extremely good post here & it looks like someone finally noticed these type of ideas... (Czar) lol

after reading the explanation of the ratings, I am a bit more at ease but still incredibly concerned as to how this will play out in regard to free agents & rookies being overrated & more importantly how ratings affect the starting lineups of CPU controlled teams.

If they are still ratings based, it will cause 6th men & role players to start & subsequently; free agent pick ups & rookies may not have to earn their minutes as they may be given to them if they are rated high enough. Of course i'm referring to MYLeague & other season modes when i speak of these concerns. Be awesome if someone could chime in on this.
 
# 83 Real2KInsider @ 09/05/14 03:52 AM
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

That is a clarification on what I have been asking. Multiple formulas PER position.

What you mean to say is each player archetype within a position has it's own OVR set, and the game auto-assigns whichever one nets the highest OVR

All Positions: All-Around, Athletic, Defensive, Scoring/Back to Basket, 3pt Specialist/Faceup
PG: Pass First
SG: Slashing
SF: Slashing, Point Forward
PF/C: Rebounding

Whether there is a formula for each of these types, new types, or any types removed is not quite being made clear (which is surely the intention, with a month to go).

In the case of Drummond I imagine his rating jumps to 83 because the "rebounding" or "defensive" archetype values him greater than last year's formula. This also explains why all of the low-rated centers are taking quantum leaps; their lack of offensive skill no longer hampers their rating
 
# 84 Real2KInsider @ 09/05/14 04:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ronyell
after reading the explanation of the ratings, I am a bit more at ease but still incredibly concerned as to how this will play out in regard to free agents & rookies being overrated & more importantly how ratings affect the starting lineups of CPU controlled teams.
I'm sure this system was brought in as a means to combat that. Most of the top-rated SG are all sixth men, while the starters are usually one-dimensional 3 & D guys. System seems designed to increase the rating of those 3 & D guys so they might be higher valued by their teams, and consequently, starters.

I don't think the CPU AI will ever be perfect. Nor should it, as IRL we have coaches making human errors with their lineups all the time (Scotty Brooks!). This appears to be a step in the right direction for 2K though.
 
# 85 Gramps91 @ 09/05/14 06:59 AM
Yea, I really like the sound of this. Looking forward to seeing the different player types. Hopefully there are quite a few so it feels pretty specific.
 
# 86 jfinger2013 @ 09/05/14 07:00 AM
IMO for those confused I believe what they mean by different formulas now than just one singular formula to base players overall is for example in nba 2k14 a guy like Thabo Sefolosha is rated with a very low overall despite being the teams starting SG and very important to that team defensively.
He was rated low due to the fact that they only used 1 formula to produce overalls in 2k14 and in that formula how good Thabo Sefolosha was defensively didn't matter. So it didn't make his overall go up.
What they are saying now is that guys like Thabo Sefolosha who are only " Good " players because of one thing they do really well like play defense he will still get a good overall rating because now they have different Formulas that weight defense as important so he will have a good overall.
Just like Kyle Korver in 2K14 who was rated very lowly in 2k14 despite being a starter and the best shooter in the NBA due to the fact that the old formula didn't weight his shooting as important. But now they prolly have a formula that makes Shooting important and will make Korver higher Overall

They prolly have 5 formulas one that produces a good overall rating for Defense, Shooters, Rebounders, Passers, Scorers or something of that matter.

That's how it works out in my head I think. Im excited to see how this works out

P.S idk Bedwardsroy worked for NBA 2K14 when did that happen or did he always work for them? either way Congrats man
 
# 87 rgp913 @ 09/05/14 08:11 AM
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
My understanding came from the information you supplied. That's what I comprehended from your summary. If it's more indepth and works differently- that is great. I hope it is. Can you clarify more and explain in greater detail?
 
# 88 Leftos @ 09/05/14 09:28 AM
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.
 
# 89 PPerfect_CJ @ 09/05/14 10:05 AM
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?
 
# 90 eaciv973 @ 09/05/14 10:08 AM
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.
 
# 91 PPerfect_CJ @ 09/05/14 10:15 AM
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.
 
# 92 PPerfect_CJ @ 09/05/14 10:18 AM
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!
 
# 93 rbfn04 @ 09/05/14 10:28 AM
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.
 
# 94 jeebs9 @ 09/05/14 10:42 AM
That first post sounds so goood!! I can't wait to actually play it!!
 
# 95 threattonature @ 09/05/14 10:45 AM
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?
 
# 96 Colts18 @ 09/05/14 11:31 AM
It is wild that so many talent folks are working on a basketball game. We are blessed. We were already blessed to begin with but we are blessed man. It isn't fair
 
# 97 23 @ 09/05/14 12:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbfn04
So system DOES matter.
I guess it does in a more complicated way since they assess value to players but not exactly as it was brought up before.

I also wish 2k would just release the info and not have Beds have to tip toe trying to explain the new system.

The marketing is weird sometimes
 
# 98 Sundown @ 09/05/14 12:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leftos
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.
This is fantastic. I didn't have time to join in the team building AI thread but basically my thought was that the AI needed to recognize what it had beyond vague overalls, what it can do with that, what pieces are needed, and what that means in the team building cycle. It sounds like you guys are setting up a foundation that would allow that sort of team building.

From there, in short, the AI should build teams influenced by a hierarchy of specific to general: Players on hand, compatible system, coaching style, rebuild stage based on roster, GM tendencies, and owner desires.

But nothing really will make sense unless the evaluation of players makes sense and the AI factors in what sort of system they can play in

I hope that the archetypes become much more specific than simply defensive, offensive, or all-around big man (edit: upon second reading, that seems to be the case). There's rim protector, pick and roll big, pick and pop big, stretch 4, face up 4, post scorer, hustle guy, post facilitator, etc etc, with each player possibly covering multiple roles. And that's just for a big. The AI needs to understand that there's more than getting high OVRs -- getting all ball dominant players is a bad idea-- and should be seeking complimentary pieces for its best players (factoring in value/length/age/tradeability of contract/etc). I'd really like a system that models how difficult it is to both build a superteam in the first place and how to get them to play well together. I would love a system that would allow for ring chasing superteams-on-paper to fail and discourage unrealistic superstar hero balling at all levels.

Anyway, excited to see how the new system works and how it'll be expanded upon in the future.
 
# 99 LD2k @ 09/05/14 12:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 23
The marketing is weird sometimes
So is OS. And that's why we're here.
 
# 100 23 @ 09/05/14 12:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LD2k
So is OS. And that's why we're here.
Touche...lol

Can't argue there. Glad you guys are.

Are you going to be in Anaheim next week?
 


Post A Comment
Only OS members can post comments
Please login or register to post a comment.