no content
AdBlocker active?
It seems you are using software to block advertisements. You could help us if you could switch it off when visiting redzoneaction.org.
The reason is very simple: Advertisements help us running the site, to offer you the game in a good quality for free. So if you like the game, please support us by purchasing a Supporter Account or disabling the AdBlocker on this site.
Thank you very much!
| Main / Suggestions / Teamrating Search Forum | |
| Navigation: |< < 1 3 4 > >| | |
| Rating: | |
| Poster | Message |
| posted: 2012-01-01 14:34:54 (ID: 21657) Report Abuse | |
|
Admin wrote:
What we could do: We calculate the rating based on the players that were involved in the last official game (Team page) or the actual game (Gamecenter), based on the positions of the involved players in the DC. Edit: changed from "based on roster positions" to "based on DC positions" I think this a good solution. But there is another problem: some teams don´t use Gunners and Kick-Returners. They fill their DC with WR,RB,CB and SF and any ... And then there is the ST rating very low. And the Overall rating, too. Therefore the question is: Do we need to calculate the G and KR in the ST rating? Another thing is: In the league table is a ranking too. If you hover over the teams you ´will found "#3 rush offense #7 pass offense ....." That means we have a second league ranking. Therefore I ask: Why don´t you list this for all 32 teams in the league table by selecting "rush offense" or "pass defense"? |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Turtlemania
|
posted: 2012-01-01 14:37:48 (ID: 21658) Report Abuse |
|
Do we need really teamrating on teampage?
What does it say anyway? A good manager looks at past games and get idea I think it is just for bragging and also discouraging new teams and would only like to see the "exact %" of the players used in a game on the gamereport |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
notsch
|
posted: 2012-01-01 14:44:44 (ID: 21659) Report Abuse |
|
The idea with the number of plays is great!
@turtlemania I like the idea of a quick rating of a team on its overview page...well, i also like to check the stats page on nfl.com...there might be a coincidence...i mean, which football fan doesn´t like stats? 
Turtlemania wrote:
A good manager looks at past games and get idea Well, noone said you shouldn´t do that anyway...thats not the point here... Last edited on 2012-01-01 14:49:23 by notsch |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
SteMan
|
posted: 2012-01-01 14:45:32 (ID: 21661) Report Abuse |
|
Turtlemania wrote:
Do we need really teamrating on teampage? What does it say anyway? A good manager looks at past games and get idea I think it is just for bragging and also discouraging new teams and would only like to see the "exact %" of the players used in a game on the gamereport  |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Turtlemania
|
posted: 2012-01-01 14:47:38 (ID: 21662) Report Abuse |
|
notsch wrote:
The idea with the number of plays is great! @turtlemania I like the idea of a quick rating of a team on its overview page...well, i also like to check the stats page on nfl.com...there might be a coincidence...i mean, which football fan doesn´t like stats? Sure i like NFL Stats But here with Team A like me play only against bot and other with bad luck play alot of human there is no base to compare "quick stats" It is just for bragging and have something to put in a team news article - but not comparable anyway. I did not vote against - i just try to make statement to have more the useful ones valid instead overload with stuff with no "content" |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
notsch
|
posted: 2012-01-01 14:57:17 (ID: 21663) Report Abuse |
|
Turtlemania wrote:
But here with Team A like me play only against bot and other with bad luck play alot of human there is no base to compare "quick stats" Why not? If i see two teams both playing only bot teams and one has ratings around 37 and the other one 42 i could tell just by cheking their overview pages that the latter is probably better... Sidenote: I thaught the given numbers in the quik rating are derived out of the skill sset of the involved players and not from the stats of the players...i hope i am right in that point. Turtlemania wrote:
It is just for bragging and have something to put in a team news article - but not comparable anyway. No, i disagree, for me it is not just for bragging...and i think there are comparable if my sidenote is correct. Turtlemania wrote:
I did not vote against - i just try to make statement to have more the useful ones valid instead overload with stuff with no "content" Well, its an easy understandable eyecatcher...boys like eyecatchers...boys might stay longer in that game if they have a certain amount of working eyecatchers... Last edited on 2012-01-01 15:16:49 by notsch |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Admin
Contact |
posted: 2012-01-01 15:08:54 (ID: 21664) |
|
While you guys started a nice discussion, I spent the time and changed the rating according to my explanation. The point with the odd ST rating is very valid - and I don't have a solution for it yet.
Let's see if this works better. Notice: The ingame ratings of past simulated games are not affected, only future games and the team page rating benefit from that change. And finally: yes, it is bragging, but it is a marker for success, too. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
JonnyP
|
posted: 2012-01-01 15:19:47 (ID: 21665) Report Abuse |
|
Admin wrote:
And finally: yes, it is bragging, but it is a marker for success, too. And very useful for those of us who weren't here at the start to help measure our progress.. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
bellj
|
posted: 2012-01-01 15:34:09 (ID: 21667) Report Abuse |
|
Admin wrote:
While you guys started a nice discussion, I spent the time and changed the rating according to my explanation. The point with the odd ST rating is very valid - and I don't have a solution for it yet. Let's see if this works better. Notice: The ingame ratings of past simulated games are not affected, only future games and the team page rating benefit from that change. And finally: yes, it is bragging, but it is a marker for success, too. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
JonnyP
|
posted: 2012-01-01 15:57:36 (ID: 21671) Report Abuse |
|
Admin wrote:
One step back 
We could do it as described above, but not based on the DC - the information is simply not available. So it would be based on the roster positions, but only for involved players in the game (based on their "# of plays" from the game stats Just realised a problem with this, correct me if I'm wrong, say for example this is my DC for KR: -WR -WR -RB -RB -KR And the KR in 5th spot doesn't play, doesn't that skew the ratings? If so, it can't be based on roster positions either - but purely on skills of players who actually played. Another example - I have a good allrounder who usually starts at FB, but often comes on as G/P/RB/TE at various times - it's not a good representation if it only rates him for his FB skills. Of course, I may be barking up the wrong tree here.... |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| reply Mark this thread unread | |
| Navigation: |< < 1 3 4 > >| | |
| Main / Suggestions / Teamrating | |
