Warrior General Games

I think someone else had either mentioned this before or maybe there was a suggestion a long time back that I couldn't find. anyway my suggestion here would be a ratings system for coordinators somewhat like the team rankings system we have now.

I was thinking something along the lines of coordinators would get points decided upon # of wins. also wins against higher rated teams would count a little more. also scrimmages wouldn't count at all. the only wins that counted would be regular league games, tourney games, and playoff games. by only using those games it would stop teams from trying to game the system using ranked scrims. I also think that WL and Pro games should count a little more than the lower leagues and casual. simply due to the gameplanning usually being so much more in depth for the most part. so I guess a point breakdown would be something like this.

Regular season casual, peewee and all leagues below Pro- 1 point per win
Regular season Casual Pro, Pro and WL- 2 points per win
Tournament wins casual Peewee and al leagues below Pro- 1 point per win
Tournament wins Casual Pro,Pro and WL-2 points per win
Tournaments 1st 2nd and 3rd place- 5 points for 1st place, 3 points for 2nd place and 2 for 3rd place.
Playoffs in casual, peewee and all leagues below Pro- 2 points per win and 5 points for a championship.
Playoffs in Casual Pro, Pro, WL- 5 points for a win and 10 points for a championsip.

there could also be a blowout adjusted setting added that if a team wins by something like 50 that the point doesn't count for the coordinator. this would be added to make sure teams that tank and get put in crappy leagues for the cheap trophies wouldn't be rewarded for doing so.

+1

Not sure on the point system, but I like the overall idea.

Originally posted by LT56
Not sure on the point system, but I like the overall idea.

I am open to suggestions on how it can be changed for the better or even open to discuss why I chose the point totals I did.

Originally posted by hatchman
I am open to suggestions on how it can be changed for the better or even open to discuss why I chose the point totals I did.

IMO the biggest problem with the point system is that it rewards volume.

Someone could be the best coordinator in the game but only have the time to work on one or two teams at a time.

Someone else could be only average, but have time to operate a few more teams.

Not to mention, there's too many factors just to go by wins. If a team wins a lot of games 6-3 or something like that, it doesn't make sense to give as much credit to the OC as the DC.

Originally posted by Warhawk
Originally posted by hatchman

I am open to suggestions on how it can be changed for the better or even open to discuss why I chose the point totals I did.

IMO the biggest problem with the point system is that it rewards volume.

Someone could be the best coordinator in the game but only have the time to work on one or two teams at a time.

Someone else could be only average, but have time to operate a few more teams.

that and lumping Cas Pro and Nat Pro with WL in importance of wins

how about something like

Name...............................W...............L...........Average.......Gold.......Silver
AD2K..............................10................6...........6......................0............0.....
Dub J................................0.................16.........0.....................0..............0..

Then you can click on W and it will rank who has the most wins L for most losses, etc, etc.

Originally posted by Warhawk
Originally posted by hatchman

I am open to suggestions on how it can be changed for the better or even open to discuss why I chose the point totals I did.

IMO the biggest problem with the point system is that it rewards volume.

Someone could be the best coordinator in the game but only have the time to work on one or two teams at a time.

Someone else could be only average, but have time to operate a few more teams.

Not to mention, there's too many factors just to go by wins. If a team wins a lot of games 6-3 or something like that, it doesn't make sense to give as much credit to the OC as the DC.

I can see where you are coming from here. and that is something that I had overlooked in my initial thought process.

Originally posted by reddogrw
Originally posted by Warhawk

Originally posted by hatchman


I am open to suggestions on how it can be changed for the better or even open to discuss why I chose the point totals I did.

IMO the biggest problem with the point system is that it rewards volume.

Someone could be the best coordinator in the game but only have the time to work on one or two teams at a time.

Someone else could be only average, but have time to operate a few more teams.

that and lumping Cas Pro and Nat Pro with WL in importance of wins

Basically that could be changed as well I just figured for the sake of argument that if I had just said Pro that someone would have came in and started talking about casual Pro. this idea is just a rough draft to see if it is something that people might like to see happen.

Originally posted by Warhawk
IMO the biggest problem with the point system is that it rewards volume.

Someone could be the best coordinator in the game but only have the time to work on one or two teams at a time.

Someone else could be only average, but have time to operate a few more teams.

Not to mention, there's too many factors just to go by wins. If a team wins a lot of games 6-3 or something like that, it doesn't make sense to give as much credit to the OC as the DC.

so in the calculation equation, you'd have to factor in some aspect of points scored/allowed based on which coordinator is being done.

Would you setup a baseline setting of some kind?? Personally, i've always thought as a DC, If i can keep an opponent to 20 or less points; I'd hope/expect the Offense/ST combo could win the game. Of course i'm shooting for a shutout but If more than 20pts are allowed than i'm definitely not doing my job. Maybe it should be considered closer to 14 but anywhere in the 14-20 range could end up a baseline for DC performance.

Originally posted by Tigroklaws
so in the calculation equation, you'd have to factor in some aspect of points scored/allowed based on which coordinator is being done.

Would you setup a baseline setting of some kind?? Personally, i've always thought as a DC, If i can keep an opponent to 20 or less points; I'd hope/expect the Offense/ST combo could win the game. Of course i'm shooting for a shutout but If more than 20pts are allowed than i'm definitely not doing my job. Maybe it should be considered closer to 14 but anywhere in the 14-20 range could end up a baseline for DC performance.

Figure out what the average points scored/points allowed in non-blowouts is at any given level and modify the points by a percentage based on how much more or less the team scores. Maybe even give partial points for an OC or DC on a losing team who scores twice as much, or allows half as much, respectively, than the average.

Actually, more to the point, to avoid volume problems and incorporate the team's performance in specific games, you could probably come up with a formula to calculate the Win Probability Added of any given coordinator.

Has potential.

+1