|
Post by James Kay on Jul 13, 2014 17:26:47 GMT
That thread is locked and I cant post there, but can someone explain what it is the SWC does?
|
|
|
Post by Ian Noble on Jul 13, 2014 18:19:29 GMT
1. Puts a more sober amount of thought into whether a player really needs a rating change. 2. Discusses which areas of the player's game needs to increase/decrease, depending upon their current in-game rating. Also 3. Walt Frazier will make the change in-game, then copy/paste the results over to me (D5) and Josh (F5) so that we can copy/paste it into the official players databases. Also Walt will post a thread to inform GMs of the changes. edit: Walt could post more I'm sure
|
|
|
Post by James Kay on Jul 13, 2014 20:43:57 GMT
1. Puts a more sober amount of thought into whether a player really needs a rating change. 2. Discusses which areas of the player's game needs to increase/decrease, depending upon their current in-game rating. Also 3. Walt Frazier will make the change in-game, then copy/paste the results over to me (D5) and Josh (F5) so that we can copy/paste it into the official players databases. Also Walt will post a thread to inform GMs of the changes. edit: Walt could post more I'm sure Just to be clear, now rating changes will be in the hands of only 3-4 people?
|
|
|
Post by Ian Noble on Jul 13, 2014 20:58:30 GMT
1. Puts a more sober amount of thought into whether a player really needs a rating change. 2. Discusses which areas of the player's game needs to increase/decrease, depending upon their current in-game rating. Also 3. Walt Frazier will make the change in-game, then copy/paste the results over to me (D5) and Josh (F5) so that we can copy/paste it into the official players databases. Also Walt will post a thread to inform GMs of the changes. edit: Walt could post more I'm sure Just to be clear, now rating changes will be in the hands of only 3-4 people? Rating changes are still in the hands of everyone. If the SWC decision is vastly different from the league-wide consensus then something's wrong. The SWC will prioritise which player changes are made first and decide which areas of each player's game needs to change (also open for discussion for everyone). Walt will make the changes in-game and post the results for all to see.
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Jul 13, 2014 21:05:36 GMT
Our plan is to start rating changes the same way they start right now: Someone starts a thread about a player needing an increase.
Then everyone still posts about what they think the new rating should be.
The real change comes next: Instead of Ian taking the load and figuring out how to best adjust all of the individual ratings to get the correct new overall rating, the 5-person Stock Watch Committee will figure all of that out.
The final rating is still decided the same way as it always was, but instead of just Ian figuring the rest out, the SWC figures it out.
|
|
|
Post by Charles Barkley on Jul 13, 2014 22:19:26 GMT
Our plan is to start rating changes the same way they start right now: Someone starts a thread about a player needing an increase. Then everyone still posts about what they think the new rating should be. The real change comes next: Instead of Ian taking the load and figuring out how to best adjust all of the individual ratings to get the correct new overall rating, the 5-person Stock Watch Committee will figure all of that out. The final rating is still decided the same way as it always was, but instead of just Ian figuring the rest out, the SWC figures it out. Does it go the same for decreases then? Will the SWC keep an eye on guys who need a decrease, and make those threads if they need to be made?
|
|
|
Post by Charles Barkley on Jul 13, 2014 22:20:45 GMT
It also seems like Ian is installing a parliament here. WE ARE USED TO OUR FREEDOMS!!!
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Jul 13, 2014 22:43:22 GMT
Our plan is to start rating changes the same way they start right now: Someone starts a thread about a player needing an increase. Then everyone still posts about what they think the new rating should be. The real change comes next: Instead of Ian taking the load and figuring out how to best adjust all of the individual ratings to get the correct new overall rating, the 5-person Stock Watch Committee will figure all of that out. The final rating is still decided the same way as it always was, but instead of just Ian figuring the rest out, the SWC figures it out. Does it go the same for decreases then? Will the SWC keep an eye on guys who need a decrease, and make those threads if they need to be made? Yes, all stock watch discussion happens just like it used to. Again, instead of Ian making the decisions after that point by himself, we will get a larger sample of opinions to focus in on the specific changes needed to affect the overall rating change requested by the league.
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Jul 13, 2014 22:44:10 GMT
It also seems like Ian is installing a parliament here. WE ARE USED TO OUR FREEDOMS!!! Ian is taking a process that used to be handled by just him and spreading it out to 5 people instead!
|
|
|
Post by Ian Noble on Jul 13, 2014 23:00:04 GMT
It also seems like Ian is installing a parliament here. WE ARE USED TO OUR FREEDOMS!!! Ian is taking a process that used to be handled by just him and spreading it out to 5 people instead! Amazingly I had not considered this point. Thank God I do have a committee now because all I would do was look at stats and go from there.
|
|
|
Post by Andrei Kirilenko on Jul 13, 2014 23:21:30 GMT
The ratings committee simply takes the ideas of the league and decides specifically how to implement them into the game.
For instance, let's assume that a stockwatch thread agrees that Lance Stephenson needs an increase to a 90. There is no option in the game to simply put his overall rating up; the only way to increase a player's overall rating is to increase specific ratings and have the overall rating go up because of that. The overall rating, which is the topic of discussion in the stockwatch section, is completely dependent on the other categories of ratings.
So, if Lance Stephenson is supposed to be a 90, we can't simply raise his overall to 90. That's where the ratings committee comes in to play. They will analyze Stephenson's stats and performance and decide that he needs an increase in rebounding numbers, an increase in assists numbers, an increase in 3p%, hustle, etc. They are doing all the dirty work so Ian (and I guess myself now) don't have to spend time deciding what specific categories to increase to get a player's overall rating up.
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Jul 13, 2014 23:55:21 GMT
Agreed with Josh.
Basically, this should be a very good thing for the league. It's going to be a lot of work for the SWC to be honest, but once we get our process straightened out and get things rolling, we will be processing an incredible amount of rating changes compared to what is currently able to be done.
|
|
|
Post by Charles Barkley on Jul 14, 2014 0:07:45 GMT
Not sure if you got my sarcasm in the parliament thing or not. But it was a joke. I think the SWC is a good idea. I think I even suggested a SWC in the past months.
|
|
|
Post by Shaquille O'Neal on Jul 14, 2014 14:25:09 GMT
Can I ask that James Kay be in charge of deciding where Lowry's increase goes. Walt and Alex are both division rivals with strong PGs so they may subconsciously sabotage my ass.
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Jul 14, 2014 23:33:42 GMT
The rating is basically decided by the whole league, as we've said 5 times :-p
We are just allocating the proper individual ratings to make the overall rating happen per league request/consensus.
:-)
|
|
|
Post by Jeremiah Hill on Jul 15, 2014 5:04:32 GMT
Ratings committee will be more responsible for say keeping track of the smaller names, making sure guys like Jason Terry aren't still 84s after the allstar break I would assume.
|
|
|
Post by Shaquille O'Neal on Jul 15, 2014 12:36:17 GMT
The rating is basically decided by the whole league, as we've said 5 times :-p I meant how the increase is applied. Which attributes are raised specifically. That's what I wanted Kay to decide.
|
|