Author Topic: How to convert tactics scores in team reports (Read 6534 times)

Brian Clough · « **on:** December 31, 2013, 02:49:01 AM »

To convert team report tactics scores to the scale used in next match reports here is the forumla:

TR_tr/n=L_nmr
where
TR_tr = team rating score in team report
L_nmr = level score in next match report
n = sum of weight coefficients*
NR = Next match report score

* n = (1)g + (0.8)y + (0.5)r
where
g is the number of green filled scores
y is the number of yellow filled scores
r is the number of red filled scores

For example

UZM calculation with a 4-1-1-3-1 formation
UZM in team report = 400
n = (1)5 + (0.8)1 + (0.5)4 = 5.0 + 0.8 + 2.0 = 7.8
thus
400/7.8 = 51.28 or a D grade (D = 47-52)

Anyway I'm 99% sure this is correct...try it out

Derfos · « **Reply #1 on:** December 31, 2013, 04:14:25 AM »

Thanks Brian!

Golex · « **Reply #2 on:** December 31, 2013, 07:23:54 AM »

Quote from: Brian Clough on December 31, 2013, 02:49:01 AM

* n = (1)g + (0.8)y + (0.5)r
where
g is the number of green filled scores
y is the number of yellow filled scores
r is the number of red filled scores

Thanks Brain!!
I do not understand why the creators of the game have changed this calculation?? Before it was clear, now it's complicated !

Kr10s · « **Reply #3 on:** December 31, 2013, 10:34:48 AM »

Non premium users does not like this

I still got the feeling that next match report is not that effective against active users anymore, but still, this calculation will make things a lot easier against predictable squads, you're a genious!

Ologga · « **Reply #4 on:** December 31, 2013, 02:03:00 PM »

Quote from: Brian Clough on December 31, 2013, 02:49:01 AM

To convert team report tactics scores to the scale used in next match reports here is the forumla:

TR_tr/n=L_nmr
where
TR_tr = team rating score in team report
L_nmr = level score in next match report
n = sum of weight coefficients*
NR = Next match report score

* n = (1)g + (0.8)y + (0.5)r
where
g is the number of green filled scores
y is the number of yellow filled scores
r is the number of red filled scores

For example

UZM calculation with a 4-1-1-3-1 formation
UZM in team report = 400
n = (1)5 + (0.8)1 + (0.5)4 = 5.0 + 0.8 + 2.0 = 7.8
thus
400/7.8 = 51.28 or a D grade (D = 47-52)

Anyway I'm 99% sure this is correct...try it out

with this formulas the only thing you get is relieve the game spirit converting a football game in a simple mathematic problem, as I said yesterday, the fault is as always from admin that gives a lot of data for sell a stupid premium account that kills the game.

marius.82 · « **Reply #5 on:** December 31, 2013, 02:09:12 PM »

Quote from: Oberstdorf on December 31, 2013, 02:03:00 PM

Quote from: Brian Clough on December 31, 2013, 02:49:01 AM
To convert team report tactics scores to the scale used in next match reports here is the forumla:

TR_tr/n=L_nmr
where
TR_tr = team rating score in team report
L_nmr = level score in next match report
n = sum of weight coefficients*
NR = Next match report score

* n = (1)g + (0.8)y + (0.5)r
where
g is the number of green filled scores
y is the number of yellow filled scores
r is the number of red filled scores

For example

UZM calculation with a 4-1-1-3-1 formation
UZM in team report = 400
n = (1)5 + (0.8)1 + (0.5)4 = 5.0 + 0.8 + 2.0 = 7.8
thus
400/7.8 = 51.28 or a D grade (D = 47-52)

Anyway I'm 99% sure this is correct...try it out

with this formulas the only thing you get is relieve the game spirit converting a football game in a simple mathematic problem, as I said yesterday, the fault is as always from admin that gives a lot of data for sell a stupid premium account that kills the game.

TRUE !!!

dragon90 · « **Reply #6 on:** December 31, 2013, 02:48:05 PM »

Thank you! I like the new upgrades

It's nice to have a living and breathing game, which costantly evolves!

Ruta · « **Reply #7 on:** December 31, 2013, 05:50:30 PM »

Quote from: Oberstdorf on December 31, 2013, 02:03:00 PM

with this formulas the only thing you get is relieve the game spirit converting a football game in a simple mathematic problem, as I said yesterday, the fault is as always from admin that gives a lot of data for sell a stupid premium account that kills the game.

I agree with you that pay for win in this game is too far

But new engine is better then old cause :

Quote from: Ruta on December 31, 2013, 05:39:24 PM

When we look close to the statisc we can see that now your attack and defence depends how much players you have below or above MC line. In old engine you can move 1or even 2 up and your atack diddn't rise. All used to depend on power of your players . Now if you will move players forward , no matter how strong they are , your attack must rise. In this way new engine is great, logic and more realistic.Now preperation for a match are more strategic, we need to choose how will opponent play and can beat them by idea not power of players.[/color] It was impossible in old engine by some simple moves of players.

Now is easier to take right decisions, even if you haven't got analisys. If you want to attack you need more players higher, if you want to defend you need more defenders , more MC more possesion. It is stright way. not like in the past when if player was on lower level then others in formation your numbers go down in analisys . It was ridicoulus for me.

Ologga · « **Reply #8 on:** December 31, 2013, 06:01:50 PM »

said with other words, since now non premium users are simple extras in this game unless they decide to pay a, since now, indispensable premium account, one more time admin shows us his questionable business skills. at least with me won't be effective even thought now I will be less competitive than previous seasons. not surprised. thanks fucking admin.

chefo · « **Reply #9 on:** January 01, 2014, 04:29:39 PM »

Game has turned shit, pay to win has gotten ridiculous. It's either pay or quit and I have no intention to pay to those idiots.

I wish you guys all the best, was fun

Drifter · « **Reply #10 on:** January 01, 2014, 04:58:12 PM »

Great work Brian. You have saved me from doing all that research myself. I will use your formula and see if it works for me.

marctiello · « **Reply #11 on:** January 01, 2014, 08:55:58 PM »

Just for love of Maths....

I tried it for my team...making it in the reverse way, i mean trying to obtain the Team value from the single player value. In my case i found that 0.81 for yellow and 0.51 for red give me the overall value with a better precision than using 0.5 and 0.8

Anyway, the difference can be neglected....for the case of UZM shown by Brian, there is only a 0.33 difference : 50.95 vs 51.28.....

Sopelana · « **Reply #12 on:** January 24, 2014, 09:13:12 PM »

Hi to all,

I found a more lineal and simple formula that is divide the number we have in premiums reports (450, for example) between 7,5 ALWAYS.

In this way we have 450/7,5 = 60

Then, we see on old table, and 60 is a C (56-61).

In this way we can compare old number on premium rates with new ones.

Brian Clough · « **Reply #13 on:** January 25, 2014, 08:49:18 AM »

Quote from: Sopelana on January 24, 2014, 09:13:12 PM

Hi to all,

I found a more lineal and simple formula that is divide the number we have in premiums reports (450, for example) between 7,5 ALWAYS.

In this way we have 450/7,5 = 60

Then, we see on old table, and 60 is a C (56-61).

In this way we can compare old number on premium rates with new ones.

I'm sorry, but your method only works with certain formations whose cumulative weights must be close to 7.5. For example, a 4-4-2 formation yields a cumulative weight of 8.2 (defending tactics) or 7.2 (attacking tactics).

Ultimately, the divisor can be within a range between 5 and 10 (the extremes are cheeky formations like 5-5-0-0-0), so 7.5 is a rough average. My formula will more accurately gauge tactical scores for any formation possible. Using 7.5 might work for inferior opponents, but you will probably want to find more precise values when facing stronger opposition.

Sopelana · « **Reply #14 on:** January 25, 2014, 09:19:58 AM »

Quote from: Brian Clough on January 25, 2014, 08:49:18 AM

Quote from: Sopelana on January 24, 2014, 09:13:12 PM
Hi to all,

I found a more lineal and simple formula that is divide the number we have in premiums reports (450, for example) between 7,5 ALWAYS.

In this way we have 450/7,5 = 60

Then, we see on old table, and 60 is a C (56-61).

In this way we can compare old number on premium rates with new ones.

I'm sorry, but your method only works with certain formations whose cumulative weights must be close to 7.5. For example, a 4-4-2 formation yields a cumulative weight of 8.2 (defending tactics) or 7.2 (attacking tactics).

Ultimately, the divisor can be within a range between 5 and 10 (the extremes are cheeky formations like 5-5-0-0-0), so 7.5 is a rough average. My formula will more accurately gauge tactical scores for any formation possible. Using 7.5 might work for inferior opponents, but you will probably want to find more precise values when facing stronger opposition.

My number is not based on maths, is based on logic. I mean, I saw the number in reports on green, for example 495 is on green. I remember that 66 before was on green (B) I look the number to conver green on green, that's why I took 7,5 cause it was this number. Maybe is only an aproximation, and only works on few cases. XD.

Derfos · « **Reply #15 on:** January 25, 2014, 11:11:14 AM »

Quote from: Sopelana on January 25, 2014, 09:19:58 AM

My number is not based on maths, is based on logic.

Math is logic and the logic is right there ?
Thanks to Brian

Quote from: Brian Clough on December 31, 2013, 02:49:01 AM

To convert team report tactics scores to the scale used in next match reports here is the forumla:

TR_tr/n=L_nmr
where
TR_tr = team rating score in team report
L_nmr = level score in next match report
n = sum of weight coefficients*
NR = Next match report score

* n = (1)g + (0.8)y + (0.5)r
where
g is the number of green filled scores
y is the number of yellow filled scores
r is the number of red filled scores

For example

UZM calculation with a 4-1-1-3-1 formation
UZM in team report = 400
n = (1)5 + (0.8)1 + (0.5)4 = 5.0 + 0.8 + 2.0 = 7.8
thus
400/7.8 = 51.28 or a D grade (D = 47-52)

Anyway I'm 99% sure this is correct...try it out

Sopelana · « **Reply #16 on:** January 25, 2014, 12:10:32 PM »

Logic is a part of maths....

Aquilicua · « **Reply #17 on:** January 25, 2014, 02:34:21 PM »

I think formula of Brian is far to work. I am seeing diferents matches with diferents formations, and it seems don't work. If you calculate the results after a match (up or down arrows, you can see it).

I don't know if aproximation of Txusi (Sopelana) works (I will try it...), but I am sure that aproximation of Brian is far of real formula.

Well, it is my opinion and maybe I could be wrong.

Andy · « **Reply #18 on:** January 25, 2014, 02:58:28 PM »

Hi Guys, I think we are all saying the same thing.

When you use Brian's formula for the more common fromations you end up with a ratio of some were between 7.2 and 7.6. so Txusi's simple estimate is usually about right.

Is a bit like converting tempuratures from Fahrenhiet to Celsisu instead of deducting 32 and dividing by 1.8 most people just divide by 2 and for most summer hoiday tempuratures they are nearly always right but it wouldn't work in Antartica! And so Tsuxi will nearly always be right but one day he will come a cross a strange formation and his estimation may not work so well.........

Brian Clough · « **Reply #19 on:** January 26, 2014, 12:44:33 AM »

Quote from: Andy on January 25, 2014, 02:58:28 PM

Hi Guys, I think we are all saying the same thing.

When you use Brian's formula for the more common fromations you end up with a ratio of some were between 7.2 and 7.6. so Txusi's simple estimate is usually about right.

Is a bit like converting tempuratures from Fahrenhiet to Celsisu instead of deducting 32 and dividing by 1.8 most people just divide by 2 and for most summer hoiday tempuratures they are nearly always right but it wouldn't work in Antartica! And so Tsuxi will nearly always be right but one day he will come a cross a strange formation and his estimation may not work so well.........

Well put, Andy