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
# 41 Boilerbuzz @ 09/04/14 08:28 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaBoyBk
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

You guys will be waiting a long time as I'm sure he's not at liberty to say too much more about it. If he's not said too much already. Try no to get the guy in trouble.
 
# 42 seanbarkley @ 09/04/14 08:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaBoyBk
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


I'd like to ask Beds too: how many missing players should we expect for openning day roster this year, zero or so??
 
# 43 24ct @ 09/04/14 08:44 AM
Finally. This is why they have so many sig skills for the same type of stuff. ALA steals. Pick pocket and Interceptor. Tenacious Rebounder & Outlet Passer.

Most NBA players specialize in certain things. Which is HOW they get to the NBA. A scorer can score, but a shooter can shoot from anywhere. A Ray Allen type SG should have corner specialist. Dead Eye. Catch & Shoot etc...A Derrick Rose type PG would have finisher, posterizer, acrobat...

I think this means a player can be terrible on offense, or unpolished (Faried) but still be at least an 80 overall because of everything else he does.

A defensive/offensive/one sided player could be no more than an 80/85, but player like Paul George who plays both sides, but is not as efficient on offense as he is on defense would be an 85-89 overall at best.

Think Rubio. His passing for the PG position alone makes him at least an 80 IMO...He creates so many open looks, but he doesn't try to create for himself. I'm sure he can, but that's not his game. So his attributes should relate to him not being a scorer, but still an elite level PG...
 
# 44 luda06 @ 09/04/14 08:48 AM
I'm a bit confused. Does a player's overall rating change if they're slotted into a different position? In other words, is LeBron a 90+ at small forward, and an 80+ at center? I'm thinking madden, when players ratings would fluctuate depending on what position they're subbed into.
 
# 45 franzis @ 09/04/14 09:02 AM
The new rating system sounds interesting and I'm sure it had a lot of reasonig and work behind.
At the same time I guess it's difficult to explain/understand without specific examples and comparisons between 2k14 and 2k15 rating system.
I do hope that the new system will have some effects to other aspects of the game (i.e. CPU trading logic, Free Agency or CPU rotation logic).
 
# 46 Real2KInsider @ 09/04/14 09:15 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boilerbuzz
No, it's for people to evaluate players. The game can use whatever it deems necessary. Overalls are there primarily for the user.
Trade value, contract value, rotation value - the CPU uses Overall rating to determine all of these.

There's a reason OVR popped up in games as soon as the CPU was given in-season control over personnel.

Quote:
Dork's overall is crap because as a PF in a traditional role, he is crap.
Exactly. The traditional PF no longer exists. The formula should have evolved as the position evolved, but it did not. Mid-range and 3pt shooitng is an extremely important part of a PF's game and has been for a long time, yet the formula has never weighted it as such.

Quote:
Frankly, I don't think you can ever fix that.
You're pretty much wrong about that. Give a PF 99 3pt and his overall rating only goes up 2 points. It's obvious where the critical flaws are.

If the majority of PF rate higher at SF than their natural positions then something is obviously wrong.
 
# 47 Real2KInsider @ 09/04/14 09:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by luda06
I'm a bit confused. Does a player's overall rating change if they're slotted into a different position? In other words, is LeBron a 90+ at small forward, and an 80+ at center? I'm thinking madden, when players ratings would fluctuate depending on what position they're subbed into.
Not slotted, but rather if their primary position is changed.

Ex: In my personal roster if I edit LeBron's position it will be the following OVR's

PG: 90
SG: 94
SF: 95
PF: 90
C: 88

In this case LeBron's highest rating is his natural position. However in the case of many stretch bigs....

Pero Antic
SF: 68
PF: 67
C: 64 = natural position

Due to the PF/C formula improperly weighing shooting ability, a shooting center will actually have a higher rating at a position he is incapable of even playing IRL.

Based on the provided explanation, it seems that the game will be picking the highest OVR out of the existing archetypes (as well as any others that may have been added).
 
# 48 Real2KInsider @ 09/04/14 09:34 AM
Beyond stretch bigs, the other position that usually comes up short in 2K are defensive SGs who don't create their own shot, like Thabo Sefolosha, Keith Bogans, etc. Due to their low handle ratings, they rate exclusively better at SF where Handle isn't weighted as highly.

However this also means many combo guards could be going up in rating. Just about every single PG rates higher at SG simply based on how highly 2K values Handle & Pass rating at SG proportionate to it's ACTUAL value at the position. 0This was done to ensure players like Kobe & Wade would consistently have 90-95 overall ratings.

However now that those players have declined and the archetype has changed IRL, it only serves to overvalue players like Kent Bazemore who handle the ball and not much else. Whereas a non-shot creating 3pt specialist like Kyle Korver or Klay Thompson has immensely more value at the position both IRL and video game.
 
# 49 stillfeelme @ 09/04/14 09:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boilerbuzz
No, it's for people to evaluate players. The game can use whatever it deems necessary. Overalls are there primarily for the user.

Dork's overall is crap because as a PF in a traditional role, he is crap. Beyond that, scoring prowess is conceptually only part of the overall. So that has been reflected in his overall. It shouldn't be high because he lacks in too many other areas. But he needs to be boosted artificially so that his overall doesn't suck. Frankly, I don't think you can ever fix that.
I think you and Rashidi are right to an degree.

Overalls are for the user to know and yes it does get a lot of debates started. It is an easy way for the user to determine what players are good vs. what players are bad but they are or have been in the past used in how the CPU determines value in trades rotation lineups, etc. So that makes them vital to user and the CPU. Now if injury history plays a factor to overall that is a whole different dynamic to include.

Bedswardroy was talking how the new ratings give "value" so I see it as value to a MyLeage, Myplayer and value for a user as the same thing. I actually like this new system. It basically makes role players more valuable to teams as long as the logic is connected to Myleague etc in terms of rotations and free agency I have no problem with this.

All they did was come up with new formulas that didn't give value for certain players who are very good at their roles.

Examples:

Korver SG/SF (3pt shooter, mid range shooter). They most likely have a shooter formula that doesn't penalize him as much for not being a great dunker or euro layup rating, vertical etc.

Patrick Beverly PG (Lock down defender). They probably have a perimeter defender formula so he doesn't get penalized for not being the best at passing which should be normally for weighted high for pg's
 
# 50 threattonature @ 09/04/14 09:55 AM
I wish the ratings were tied to the type of system each team was running. I think I understood what is being done with the ratings.

IMO from what has been said is the computer is instead of just having a certain set of attributes used to calculate all PFs, now they will have something like a defensive 4 which uses rebound, post D, blocks, steals at a higher weight when calculating the overall. If it's a stretch 4 then 3 point shooting, medium range and other factors into the overall rating they give to the player. So basically each position will have different player types that can exist for the position all with his own attributes it weighs for each type and whichever kicks out the highest overall will be their ovr rating and the player type they are listed in.

It will be interesting if player's types will change as ratings rise/fall.
 
# 51 Da_Czar @ 09/04/14 10:08 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by threattonature
I wish the ratings were tied to the type of system each team was running. I think I understood what is being done with the ratings.

IMO from what has been said is the computer is instead of just having a certain set of attributes used to calculate all PFs, now they will have something like a defensive 4 which uses rebound, post D, blocks, steals at a higher weight when calculating the overall. If it's a stretch 4 then 3 point shooting, medium range and other factors into the overall rating they give to the player. So basically each position will have different player types that can exist for the position all with his own attributes it weighs for each type and whichever kicks out the highest overall will be their ovr rating and the player type they are listed in.

It will be interesting if player's types will change as ratings rise/fall.
Interesting but my question is what data would drive a players value per system when all players have not performed under each system.

wouldn't that be mostly up for interpretation or is there existing data that shows a players effectiveness in a particular system?

We don't necessarily know how a player will fare in a given stystem until we see him in it do we ?

What are the definitive markers you would use to clearly define each system especially when some guys either have no discernable "system" or run a mixture of both.

To me it just initially I think that would cause as many issues as it solves especially since it could be mostly user opinion that would drive it.

So not saying it couldn't work just asking how would it work and if that would really be better ? Another thread maybe ? IDK LOL.

ps apologies for typo's I am using a phone on a treadmill.
 
# 52 stillfeelme @ 09/04/14 10:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by threattonature
I wish the ratings were tied to the type of system each team was running. I think I understood what is being done with the ratings.
I was thinking that too but when you look at it, does the player skills that they are actually good at suffer depending on what type of system you run? IMO the answer is no, the coaches are just running plays that don't use the talent they have best. It is more the coaches are not adjusting to their personnel. The same thing can happen assigning play types to players that shouldn't have them like postup plays to a majority of point guards.

Best example I have at the moment:

Pau/Lakers: D'antoni ran a system that doesn't use post ups hardly at all, or use his passing ability. Can Pau score on the post yes can he pass yes. His skills didn't drop his coach was just using him wrong or valued other things.
 
# 53 NDAlum @ 09/04/14 10:17 AM
This is a serious, not trolling question:

Why even have overalls? Can't you just put their ratings for each specific category and leave it at that?
 
# 54 Kaanyr Vhok @ 09/04/14 10:18 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaBoyBk
I totally agree with this its as if Boris Diaw was traded to the Clippers his overall should drop immediately depending the offense and defense ran there, run and gun and etc. in comparison to the ball movement and screening on the Spurs. That would be great as players are valued different in different roles and teams. Tim Thomas did good in Milwaukee as 6th man and run n gun offense. But he didn't do well in NY or CHI but then in 6th man run n gun in PHX he did well again but then when he left fell off in different system again. It should be like a team chemistry rating type of thing. The problem would only be problem if players do good/bad during the season and before/after trades and 2k doesn't adjust them promptly for us to play with those athletes appropriately.
Too inorganic. If you get everything around it right it will happen naturally.
 
# 55 Kaanyr Vhok @ 09/04/14 10:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boilerbuzz
No, it's for people to evaluate players. The game can use whatever it deems necessary. Overalls are there primarily for the user.
Brother have you not seen some of the bad trade AI? According to NBA 2k14 Mo Williams is more valuable than Robin Lopez both in overall and trade AI.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Da_Czar
I

ps apologies for typo's I am using a phone on a treadmill.
 
# 56 stillfeelme @ 09/04/14 10:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by NDAlum
This is a serious, not trolling question:

Why even have overalls? Can't you just put their ratings for each specific category and leave it at that?
In reality it probably isn't needed except for the most casual of casual fans. I think it generate interest/debate and gets people talking about the game. That makes me believe it will never be taken out. Madden has made video games all about knowing the overall which is now part of marketing or revealing the game details. NBA players want to know how they compare to the best fans want to know.
 
# 57 Hassan Darkside @ 09/04/14 10:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by threattonature
I wish the ratings were tied to the type of system each team was running. I think I understood what is being done with the ratings.
I suggested this in the wishlist thread. Madden does this based off of coaching scheme and it was at first mildly confusing not knowing the true value of my players but then it became irrelevant as my focus turned to who fit my scheme best.
 
# 58 Hassan Darkside @ 09/04/14 10:58 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Da_Czar
Interesting but my question is what data would drive a players value per system when all players have not performed under each system.

wouldn't that be mostly up for interpretation or is there existing data that shows a players effectiveness in a particular system?

We don't necessarily know how a player will fare in a given stystem until we see him in it do we ?

What are the definitive markers you would use to clearly define each system especially when some guys either have no discernable "system" or run a mixture of both.

To me it just initially I think that would cause as many issues as it solves especially since it could be mostly user opinion that would drive it.

So not saying it couldn't work just asking how would it work and if that would really be better ? Another thread maybe ? IDK LOL.

ps apologies for typo's I am using a phone on a treadmill.
The way I was thinking was that schemes/systems and/or coaching sliders would influence that. Like the triangle would value defensive awareness, offensive awareness, and 3 point shooting higher than say D'Antoni's 7 second or mess offense which values offensive awareness, ball handling, and passing per say. Derek Fisher would rate much more favorably under the triangle than D'Antoni.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NDAlum
This is a serious, not trolling question:

Why even have overalls? Can't you just put their ratings for each specific category and leave it at that?
CPU AI needs to know how to properly value players and a lot of the logic is still tied to overall. I guess it could be hidden from the user but heh.
 
# 59 adamisla @ 09/04/14 11:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruff Ryder
I suggested this in the wishlist thread. Madden does this based off of coaching scheme and it was at first mildly confusing not knowing the true value of my players but then it became irrelevant as my focus turned to who fit my scheme best.
I feel that players roles are what determines their effectiveness, rather than schemes. For example, if a player is an effective spot up shooter, then he retains the ability to shoot, regardless of what scheme is being used. However the scheme might not prioritise getting open looks for spot up shooters. Therefore that player who is effective at spot up shooting is asked to score in other ways that are outside of his skill set thus reducing his effectiveness.
 
# 60 threattonature @ 09/04/14 11:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Da_Czar
Interesting but my question is what data would drive a players value per system when all players have not performed under each system.

wouldn't that be mostly up for interpretation or is there existing data that shows a players effectiveness in a particular system?

We don't necessarily know how a player will fare in a given stystem until we see him in it do we ?

What are the definitive markers you would use to clearly define each system especially when some guys either have no discernable "system" or run a mixture of both.

To me it just initially I think that would cause as many issues as it solves especially since it could be mostly user opinion that would drive it.

So not saying it couldn't work just asking how would it work and if that would really be better ? Another thread maybe ? IDK LOL.

ps apologies for typo's I am using a phone on a treadmill.
Someone just posted the example that I was going to use but for instance say D'antoni is the coach. He may value a player in his system that has high three point shooting and athleticism and would not be concerned so much about defense or post skill or mid range jumpers or even passing ability. A player in a Popovic system would be judged based off of passing ability, shooting, screen setting, defensive and offensive awareness and not necessarily judged more off of all around game and not as much based off of athleticism. A Thibs coached team valuing defensive ability.

Pau Gasol on the Lakers appeared not very valuable due to him not fitting the D'antoni system. So due to overall fit just using base OVR Pau could be looked at as a 75 in the Lakers system as he provides some value but you put him in a Memphis or San Antonio and he could be an 80 or and 85. So in terms of overall value the players attributes don't change but their fit with a team's sytem will better utilize their skills and make them more valuable.

So basically what I'm suggesting is that there be different coaching types for offense/defense. Basic fundamental ones such as offensive type. If you get a P&R PG matched up with a coach that stresses half court offense or pick and roles then it's considered a beneficial match and the player's overall rating is higher versus if a half court/P&R PG is matched with a coach that wants to run his overall rating can drop.

Like someone else mentioned with Madden, I love that they have the player type and system type and that plays a factor in the ratings each team has for each player.

I can sort my thoughts and explain this later. On a conference call and trying to explain is a pain.
 


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