Notpron Forums

Morning*Star · Post by **Morning*Star** » 26-01-2004 16:46

http://dbpickup.ath.cx/rate/list.php?by=def
i make box defend

RaGe|DB · Post by **RaGe|DB** » 26-01-2004 17:12

u only got 9 votes o//

Maegrim · Post by **Maegrim** » 26-01-2004 18:05

the list is sorted by defense btw.

Cenotaph · Post by **Cenotaph** » 27-01-2004 14:44

Morning*star owns, even as def ^^ :p

Post by **DavidM** » 27-01-2004 15:23

def ratings is a bit fucked up
when you play good as midfielder and score lots of goals or so, people might vote you "good"....but this makes you a "good" defender in this rating

some work to do goldy, eh?´

so i'd rather have "def" "mid" "att" "keep"
and maybe an overal thing:
def x mid x att x (1 + keep)

Goldeneye · Post by **Goldeneye** » 27-01-2004 16:29

well, i changed weight of midfield votes a few days ago so they are now 0.25 of a def vote and 0.75 of a att vote (before it was 0.5:0.5), maybe this helps.

and i don't think adding an extra rating for midfield would be too good as midfield is just a combination of attack and defence.

another possibility would be to allow two partial votes for midfield, ie split it up in an half? attacker and a half? defence vote.

Post by **DavidM** » 27-01-2004 17:41

or just go to 1-1-3 which is way better anyway? x_X

and what about: def x mid x att x (1 + keep)
or alternatively: def x att x (1 + keep)

Morning*Star · Post by **Morning*Star** » 27-01-2004 18:00

DavidM wrote: or just go to 1-1-3 which is way better anyway? x_X

he's right believe it or not

Onge · Post by **Onge** » 27-01-2004 18:07

Morning*Star wrote: http://dbpickup.ath.cx/rate/list.php?by=def
i make box defend

Indeed you do.

Oooh, I've move up 1 place from yesterday.

Not totally sure how accurate these scores are...Some good players seem a bit down on the scale to me. But obviously this system is preferable to totally random teams.

RaGe|DB · Post by **RaGe|DB** » 27-01-2004 18:33

150 Onge 3.18 (26) 5.38 1.69 (3) 0.00 (3)
50 RaGe0 3.18 (61) 6.35 2.00 (1) 0.19 (11)

u have 26 votes, this does mean that if someone votes u as bad sweep ur rating goes down dramaticly
therefore u should also look at the amount of votes

Post by **DavidM** » 27-01-2004 18:51

Morning*Star wrote: he's right believe it or not

no, you arent here to agree with me, this is just wrong
all who are not paid by me disagree with meh

Post by **DavidM** » 27-01-2004 19:03

ehm nevermind
we need 1-1-3
with 1-1-1-2 you only give the 2 attackers an alibi for not defending
(defense got worse since 1-1-1-2 was introduce, lemme tell you that as lonely sweeper)
and in 1-1-3 the 3 have to be "fieldplayers"
NOT attackers,...calling them attackers just gives em another alibi

blah </rant>

priior · Post by **priior** » 27-01-2004 19:09

since the mid fielder and one of the attackers are supposed to come back and help on d...

i dont see why one has to be called a mid and the other an attack

---> 1-1-3 <-- makes sense.

RaGe|DB · Post by **RaGe|DB** » 27-01-2004 19:43

DavidM wrote:
(defense got worse since 1-1-1-2 was introduce, lemme tell you that as lonely sweeper)
and in 1-1-3 the 3 have to be "fieldplayers"
NOT attackers,...calling them attackers just gives em another alibi

blah </rant>

u are right (no really), im a sweeper and the last couple of matches i just couldnt be bothered anymore cuz everytime it was 2 or 3 vs 1 (me) and the mid didnt come back, i could blame him but nothing worked, the attackers didnt come back...

Onge · Post by **Onge** » 27-01-2004 19:52

Funny, I think things have got better defensively...I'm rarely chronically outnumbered as sweeper. Maybe I just get lucky and play with players who are prepared to take their defensive responsibilities seriously...

1-1-2-1 is a the formation most teams play...1 sweep, 1 attacker and 2 who do both...

lol