Posted by the0nlyis on 7/16/2015 3:15:00 PM (view original):
Posted by gillispie1 on 7/16/2015 2:26:00 PM (view original):
yeah of course you can... i havent used the tool in a while but you can just do like 19*ath + 15*spd + ... if your player roles are ath and spd. you just would not value potential at all (which is a bad idea). the reason the tool is better significantly is because you can incorporate potential, so you can actually do a solid job evaluating recruits. the equations aren't arbitrarily complex (you can't do if this then that type of stuff) but you can get pretty far with whats there.
using the example of 19*ath + 15* spd
is that is valuing ath 19 times more than what it currently is and 15 times vauation of spd?
So for my player role lets say ath comprises 15% of my players overall rating how do I input that?
yeah, it would be 19 times. you could do .19 to keep the numbers down or just wrap your entire equation in () and divide by 100 or 1000 at the end (or whatever you want to get things on a scale you find visually appealing).
so right now if ath is 15% and say spd is 10% and lp 75% (to keep things simple), your equation would be (ATH*15 + SPD*10 + LP*75) / 100 or ATH*0.15 + SPD*.1 + LP.75
when i got heavy into equation editing (with a tool i wrote similar to yatzrs like 6 years ago), i would go as far to use products, like have a PER*SPD component to reflect the fact that higher spd made per intrinsically more valuable, and visa versa. i dont think its particularly necessary to go to that level, to get players ranked well enough that you can go back to the eye test for the top say 20-30 guards if you really only would expect to consider the top 10 (to make up for your equations being imperfect). but if you want to try to get it to the point where the players are literally in quality order, you have to go that route (it was more of an academic experiment for me than ever an intention to not use the eye test in the end).
i also think its really good to mention how important roles are. having a single PG or C evaluation equation is really misleading. as the most important part of the game (or at least close) is constructing a team of guys who complement each other, i think its helpful to take that role and ability type of thinking all the way back to the equations. in my equation work (which was valuable more to help me nail down my thoughts, than to really help me rank), i tried to independently calculate abilities - for example, i had a guard broken into offense, defense, guard skills, and overall (which included misc stuff, it wasn't just the first 3). that helped me really nail down my thoughts on abilities, because its much easier to rank for example 50 guards by offensive ability than by overall. from there i progressed into formulas for roles - a scoring PG formula - a non scoring PG formula - and so on. this was all back before or during my great runs like 6 years ago, long before i switched from talking about ratings to talking about abilities, and recommending everyone else did the same. but i was already doing it internally for myself. i have zero doubt its the right way to go about viewing players, their skills, and team skills. playing with equations in a tool like yatzr's is really a fantastic way to help formalize your own thoughts on abilities and what comprises them (the relative value of ratings). it was certainly helpful (and fun) for me.
7/16/2015 5:23 PM (edited)