Archive for Percy896's Tennis Forum This is a new tennis forum to discuss professional tennis, vote and create polls, and ask advice about equipment, fitness, or anything regarding tennis! Now with a new Fantasy Tennis League!
What do you guys think about the possible introduction of game plans in to FTL in Season 5? You would have the option of PMing the Council/Percy on how you want to play an opponent in a match (for example... I want to serve and volley vs. Bizet for this match). You will have greater control over the outcome of your results. Please feel free to voice your opinion.
dav6789
Re: FTL... Game plans?
x.doublea wrote:
What do you guys think about the possible introduction of game plans in to FTL in Season 5? You would have the option of PMing the Council/Percy on how you want to play an opponent in a match (for example... I want to serve and volley vs. Bizet for this match). You will have greater control over the outcome of your results. Please feel free to voice your opinion.
I am not sure on this idea..some of us aren't even on for results so we don't know who we will play. I think it also puts more work on Percy .
PSALT
Re: FTL... Game plans?
dav6789 wrote:
x.doublea wrote:
What do you guys think about the possible introduction of game plans in to FTL in Season 5? You would have the option of PMing the Council/Percy on how you want to play an opponent in a match (for example... I want to serve and volley vs. Bizet for this match). You will have greater control over the outcome of your results. Please feel free to voice your opinion.
I am not sure on this idea..some of us aren't even on for results so we don't know who we will play. I think it also puts more work on Percy .
we have already discussed it with Percy and he doesn't have problem with it, work on him is not a problem.
dav6789
Re: FTL... Game plans?
PSALT wrote:
dav6789 wrote:
x.doublea wrote:
What do you guys think about the possible introduction of game plans in to FTL in Season 5? You would have the option of PMing the Council/Percy on how you want to play an opponent in a match (for example... I want to serve and volley vs. Bizet for this match). You will have greater control over the outcome of your results. Please feel free to voice your opinion.
I am not sure on this idea..some of us aren't even on for results so we don't know who we will play. I think it also puts more work on Percy .
we have already discussed it with Percy and he doesn't have problem with it, work on him is not a problem.
OK, but my first point was more significant....we won't even know who we will play, and it will slow down the results if people are p-ming Percy during his calculation time.
PSALT
Re: FTL... Game plans?
dav6789 wrote:
PSALT wrote:
dav6789 wrote:
x.doublea wrote:
What do you guys think about the possible introduction of game plans in to FTL in Season 5? You would have the option of PMing the Council/Percy on how you want to play an opponent in a match (for example... I want to serve and volley vs. Bizet for this match). You will have greater control over the outcome of your results. Please feel free to voice your opinion.
I am not sure on this idea..some of us aren't even on for results so we don't know who we will play. I think it also puts more work on Percy .
we have already discussed it with Percy and he doesn't have problem with it, work on him is not a problem.
OK, but my first point was more significant....we won't even know who we will play, and it will slow down the results if people are p-ming Percy during his calculation time.
Percy himself said we should do every match, I suggested before every event (not mandatory though). he thinks he can do it without having huge breaks, so I believe him. if it doesn't work it would be easy to simply switch to doing it before every event.
x.doublea
An important note is that this is entirely optional... you can choose do send a game plan in or just to do it the old way (just sending a schedule in). This means, sending a game plan is a risk: it might help you win or lose....
dav6789
Re: FTL... Game plans?
PSALT wrote:
dav6789 wrote:
PSALT wrote:
dav6789 wrote:
x.doublea wrote:
What do you guys think about the possible introduction of game plans in to FTL in Season 5? You would have the option of PMing the Council/Percy on how you want to play an opponent in a match (for example... I want to serve and volley vs. Bizet for this match). You will have greater control over the outcome of your results. Please feel free to voice your opinion.
I am not sure on this idea..some of us aren't even on for results so we don't know who we will play. I think it also puts more work on Percy .
we have already discussed it with Percy and he doesn't have problem with it, work on him is not a problem.
OK, but my first point was more significant....we won't even know who we will play, and it will slow down the results if people are p-ming Percy during his calculation time.
Percy himself said we should do every match, I suggested before every event (not mandatory though). he thinks he can do it without having huge breaks, so I believe him. if it doesn't work it would be easy to simply switch to doing it before every event.
I believe him aswell that he can do it, but it will make the reults take longer..that's a fact. I'm not sure what it is then: we send the game-plans before an event without knowing who we play, or we send a game-plan before each match?
PSALT
Re: FTL... Game plans?
dav6789 wrote:
PSALT wrote:
dav6789 wrote:
PSALT wrote:
dav6789 wrote:
x.doublea wrote:
What do you guys think about the possible introduction of game plans in to FTL in Season 5? You would have the option of PMing the Council/Percy on how you want to play an opponent in a match (for example... I want to serve and volley vs. Bizet for this match). You will have greater control over the outcome of your results. Please feel free to voice your opinion.
I am not sure on this idea..some of us aren't even on for results so we don't know who we will play. I think it also puts more work on Percy .
we have already discussed it with Percy and he doesn't have problem with it, work on him is not a problem.
OK, but my first point was more significant....we won't even know who we will play, and it will slow down the results if people are p-ming Percy during his calculation time.
Percy himself said we should do every match, I suggested before every event (not mandatory though). he thinks he can do it without having huge breaks, so I believe him. if it doesn't work it would be easy to simply switch to doing it before every event.
I believe him aswell that he can do it, but it will make the reults take longer..that's a fact. I'm not sure what it is then: we send the game-plans before an event without knowing who we play, or we send a game-plan before each match?
Percy says before every match. I suggested before every event, but after the draw is out. if we do Percy's way, it will take more time, but he can set a time limit on how long he waits for a new gameplan. I don't think it will be a horribly long wait.
I think this could be a nice addition. there is little strategy in this game right now. all most people do is set a schedule and wait for it to play out. this would give it more life.
leftys_rock
But what if we can't be online while results are being calculated? It will for sure be impossible for me to be online for results because I will be at either public speaking or geometry during results. Would our first gameplan be used then?
PSALT
leftys_rock wrote:
But what if we can't be online while results are being calculated? It will for sure be impossible for me to be online for results because I will be at either public speaking or geometry during results. Would our first gameplan be used then?
yes. a 'fall back' gameplan could possibly be chosen for that surface, or the person could choose a gameplan to be used for that event if they are unable to change match-to-match.
also, what about moving this to Announcements/Discussion for FTL?
dav6789
I think this game has enough life PSALT. Most of us are pushed for time as it is with other forum commitments. The strategy of the game includes picking which tournaments you enter according to your points situation or favourite surfaces or favourite tournaments. There is strategy in picking your player's strengths and weaknesses, and changing the training points later on. A good thing about this game is how quick the results are and that watching them live doesn't take long at all.
PSALT
dav6789 wrote:
I think this game has enough life PSALT. Most of us are pushed for time as it is with other forum commitments. The strategy of the game includes picking which tournaments you enter according to your points situation or favourite surfaces or favourite tournaments. There is strategy in picking your player's strengths and weaknesses, and changing the training points later on. A good thing about this game is how quick the results are and that watching them live doesn't take long at all.
I know myself that changing points around is rarely used. J-man is the only person to ever do it, that cannot be counted as 'life'. right now, after you finish training all you do is train once more every ten days, there is very little strategy in it.
schedule is the only thing. for most people there aren't a huge amount of changes for that either. there is quite a few towards the end of the season, but it's not a good enough reason to say no to this.
dav6789
PSALT wrote:
dav6789 wrote:
I think this game has enough life PSALT. Most of us are pushed for time as it is with other forum commitments. The strategy of the game includes picking which tournaments you enter according to your points situation or favourite surfaces or favourite tournaments. There is strategy in picking your player's strengths and weaknesses, and changing the training points later on. A good thing about this game is how quick the results are and that watching them live doesn't take long at all.
I know myself that changing points around is rarely used. J-man is the only person to ever do it, that cannot be counted as 'life'. right now, after you finish training all you do is train once more every ten days, there is very little strategy in it.
schedule is the only thing. for most people there aren't a huge amount of changes for that either. there is quite a few towards the end of the season, but it's not a good enough reason to say no to this.
People still change their schedules according to their results.
There are so many other forms of life in this game. We all post in this Announcements section all the time, alot of us are on for results, interviews are huge and affect performances, there are news articles, blogs etc. There is alot going on in this game, and it is still relatively easy to play. IMO, the best part of this game is how we can 'just sit back' and watch the results, read interviews etc. I don't like the idea of adding another thing onto the game like this that would take up alot more time.
PSALT
dav6789 wrote:
PSALT wrote:
dav6789 wrote:
I think this game has enough life PSALT. Most of us are pushed for time as it is with other forum commitments. The strategy of the game includes picking which tournaments you enter according to your points situation or favourite surfaces or favourite tournaments. There is strategy in picking your player's strengths and weaknesses, and changing the training points later on. A good thing about this game is how quick the results are and that watching them live doesn't take long at all.
I know myself that changing points around is rarely used. J-man is the only person to ever do it, that cannot be counted as 'life'. right now, after you finish training all you do is train once more every ten days, there is very little strategy in it.
schedule is the only thing. for most people there aren't a huge amount of changes for that either. there is quite a few towards the end of the season, but it's not a good enough reason to say no to this.
People still change their schedules according to their results.
There are so many other forms of life in this game. We all post in this Announcements section all the time, alot of us are on for results, interviews are huge and affect performances, there are news articles, blogs etc. There is alot going on in this game, and it is still relatively easy to play. IMO, the best part of this game is how we can 'just sit back' and watch the results, read interviews etc. I don't like the idea of adding another thing onto the game like this that would take up alot more time.
that for the most part is people who had unexpected results. still not a huge thing.
Percy once said that interviews have only a little effect on members, they are for entertainment for the most part. there is very little strategy here, it is 'easy' and would be nice to make it a little more difficult for people who wish it to be so. it is not as if it is mandatory to switch before every match, it's not as difficult as you seem to think. switch before every match, every event, every surface, every season, never it's your choice. simplicity will eventually become stale for many people.
x.doublea
I see where both of your opinions come from... we'll need more members to comment and, since there appears to be a potentially heated debate about this, perhaps a vote (aka referendum) to decide it....
jbors47
I am definately with NEA on this one. Not everyone can make it here for results during tournys, so some players would be at an unfair advantage.
Not_Even_Amateur
jbors47 wrote:
I am definately with NEA on this one. Not everyone can make it here for results during tournys, so some players would be at an unfair advantage.
Lol, what my name manages to pop-up everywhere even though I am yet to post:)
Right, I think this potential introduction of a "gameplan" is far too simple. I think we would DEFINITELY benefit from SOMETHING that adds less of a random thing to the game. But "I want to play serve and volley" is really loose. What about: I want to S&V first set, baseline second set: if I am winning continue to serve and volley, if I am losing then grind. What? You cannot just pin a strategy down so simply!
I think people who play PCT will see some kind of options, but not quite like that. Just something similar; something that lets you have control over your results.
This issue needs a LOT more discussion.
Not_Even_Amateur
Another point worth noting guys, would percy have to choose computer player's strategies? How fair is this?
stevos14
Oh crap, I just wrote a huge thing on this, but it didnt work! Ahh!
Okay, basically I compeletely disagree with Dave on this one, and the game does need some control over it, and I think this is a great idea, and that its something I (and the game) needed to make it more interactive/fun. I agree NEA, this does need a lot of discussion, just something to give us more control is really important.
PSALT
I do agree, something needs to be added or changed. This is a good idea with a lot of potential. It isn't complete, we weren't planning to release the idea until after Wimby (but Doublea seemed to have forgot that particular post...... ). To get more ideas though was the point of us making a thread though. We will be doing something else too, but for now we can focus on this for the time being.
Computer players would get strategies, yes. That has been discussed. They would not be changed as often. Look at Child, she could stay playing an all-court game and do just as good almost. The same goes for most computer players. Also, us being able to adapt would give us an advantage on computer players, something people here have been asking about.
Every set seems like a lot, not time wise, but for Percy to just calculate and release a set at a time. I like the idea other than that though.
J-man
I'd love to do it only if Percy could keep up with it. Maybe we should just test it out and see how people like it
dav6789
It is a good idea, but yes, we need to discuss this more before trying it out for real.
Not_Even_Amateur
I just don't like the choose a gameplan format. It is just so loose and undefined. I would vote no if the idea stayed as it is...I think we ought to look at something more strategic, as in the points idea that PCT uses. But obviously not the same. The strategy thing is far too loose for me...
PSALT
Not_Even_Amateur wrote:
I just don't like the choose a gameplan format. It is just so loose and undefined. I would vote no if the idea stayed as it is...I think we ought to look at something more strategic, as in the points idea that PCT uses. But obviously not the same. The strategy thing is far too loose for me...
I am more than open to suggestions. As of now this is all we have got. One reason this thread was made was to get opinions, however, the more important reason was to get suggestions.
Not_Even_Amateur
PSALT wrote:
Not_Even_Amateur wrote:
I just don't like the choose a gameplan format. It is just so loose and undefined. I would vote no if the idea stayed as it is...I think we ought to look at something more strategic, as in the points idea that PCT uses. But obviously not the same. The strategy thing is far too loose for me...
I am more than open to suggestions. As of now this is all we have got. One reason this thread was made was to get opinions, however, the more important reason was to get suggestions.
Well I think the gameplan thing won't work too well, that is just my opinion. I think we need a counterbalance between the gameplan and the PCT points...? Any thoughts?
PSALT
Not_Even_Amateur wrote:
PSALT wrote:
Not_Even_Amateur wrote:
I just don't like the choose a gameplan format. It is just so loose and undefined. I would vote no if the idea stayed as it is...I think we ought to look at something more strategic, as in the points idea that PCT uses. But obviously not the same. The strategy thing is far too loose for me...
I am more than open to suggestions. As of now this is all we have got. One reason this thread was made was to get opinions, however, the more important reason was to get suggestions.
Well I think the gameplan thing won't work too well, that is just my opinion. I think we need a counterbalance between the gameplan and the PCT points...? Any thoughts?
not sure if this answers your problem with it,
to avoid someone like J-man waltzing on Center Court and S&V, you would need a certain amount of points in different skills to perform that kind of game properly. that can be fooled around with of course, but a player without the needed skills would perform poorly and be passed easily. on the flip side, someone like Agassi doesn't have the skills to play a backboard kind of game. this would add realism to all-court players too. they are usually behind the back, with this however they would be able to use many different gamestyles effectively, while someone like you (sorry NEA, but you game isn't nearly as varied as other members ) would probably be limited to different styles of baseline play.
stevos14
Not_Even_Amateur wrote:
PSALT wrote:
Not_Even_Amateur wrote:
I just don't like the choose a gameplan format. It is just so loose and undefined. I would vote no if the idea stayed as it is...I think we ought to look at something more strategic, as in the points idea that PCT uses. But obviously not the same. The strategy thing is far too loose for me...
I am more than open to suggestions. As of now this is all we have got. One reason this thread was made was to get opinions, however, the more important reason was to get suggestions.
Well I think the gameplan thing won't work too well, that is just my opinion. I think we need a counterbalance between the gameplan and the PCT points...? Any thoughts?
I agree, I dont like the idea of a gameplan, its too loose. A certain balance should be found, but I dont know what yet. Somewhere in between what we have now and going all the way in the other direction.
dav6789
More ideas are needed for this, it is to vague. I think we need to put down all the different gameplans 'allowed' so it can be matched up with every player's points. For example, there is Serve & Volley, net play, aggressive tennis (coming into net for easy volleys), aggressive baseline, consistent/percentage tennis, counterpunching....we need to expand on this....
Also, what are PCT points?
PSALT
dav6789 wrote:
More ideas are needed for this, it is to vague. I think we need to put down all the different gameplans 'allowed' so it can be matched up with every player's points. For example, there is Serve & Volley, net play, aggressive tennis (coming into net for easy volleys), aggressive baseline, consistent/percentage tennis, counterpunching....we need to expand on this....
Also, what are PCT points?
Patty<3's Championship Tour.
Serve & Volley
Net play (what is this, isn't this the same as S&V?)
Aggressive all-court tennis (can this sum up 'aggressive tennis'?)
Aggressive Baseliner
Counterpuncher
Percentage player
Hit or miss (lol! I can't think of the normal term for this. overly aggressive, either hit a great winner or hit a bad error)
Grind
dav6789
PSALT wrote:
dav6789 wrote:
More ideas are needed for this, it is to vague. I think we need to put down all the different gameplans 'allowed' so it can be matched up with every player's points. For example, there is Serve & Volley, net play, aggressive tennis (coming into net for easy volleys), aggressive baseline, consistent/percentage tennis, counterpunching....we need to expand on this....
Also, what are PCT points?
Patty<3's Championship Tour.
Serve & Volley
Net play (what is this, isn't this the same as S&V?)
Aggressive all-court tennis (can this sum up 'aggressive tennis'?)
Aggressive Baseliner
Counterpuncher
Percentage player
Hit or miss (lol! I can't think of the normal term for this. overly aggressive, either hit a great winner or hit a bad error)
Grind
Serve & Volley would mainly be 'big serving' and coming in after it. e.g. hitting alot of aces during a match and coming in after each serve.
Net play wouldn't neccessarily mean hitting aces, it would mean coming in after every opportunity (serve & volleying, chip and charge, approach shots ....).
Basically, serve & volleying is using a big serve to get you to net but not doing much in return games (e.g. Roddick, Rusedski). Net play is using serves or groundstrokes to come in all the time (e.g. Henman, Sampras).
Aggressive all-court tennis is a good way to sum it up. This would be hitting good groundstrokes and setting up opportunities to come in on some occasions.
Another type could be Smart Tennis, like Hingis, always picking on your opponents weaknesses (concentrating on your opponent's game rather than your own), or 'Mixing it up' like Schnyder, hitting all types of spins and never hitting the same shot twice.
Not_Even_Amateur
I still just don't like it.
Let us turn this on its head:
think in Percy's shoes. He gets a "Grind" from me and "Aggressive Baseline" from dav. How does this fit into his calculation? How, exactly, can he measure the effectiveness of grind vs aggressive baseline for this exact match?
It is far, far, far, far too vague. There is no clear winner: you cannot just say well on clay grind is better, because then EVERYONE plays grind. I think it is far too vague. PSALT I liked your idea a lot more about being constricted to certain gameplans given your points! That is the kind of in between I was talking about but it needs more discussion...
I have an idea which I will post probably tomorrow.
x.doublea
I personally don't like using the system outlined in 'Patty<3's Championship Tour. Let's use scientific terms... these are all 'qualitative'. That's the problem. In a real match, these qualities can play out differently, and it's really hard to simulate. Perhaps extra confidence can be added if your game style 'suits' the surface, but that would be a bit unfair... who is to say that a serve and volleyer can't do well on clay or a counterpuncher can't do well on grass....
PSALT
Not_Even_Amateur wrote:
I still just don't like it.
Let us turn this on its head:
think in Percy's shoes. He gets a "Grind" from me and "Aggressive Baseline" from dav. How does this fit into his calculation? How, exactly, can he measure the effectiveness of grind vs aggressive baseline for this exact match?
It is far, far, far, far too vague. There is no clear winner: you cannot just say well on clay grind is better, because then EVERYONE plays grind. I think it is far too vague. PSALT I liked your idea a lot more about being constricted to certain gameplans given your points! That is the kind of in between I was talking about but it needs more discussion...
I have an idea which I will post probably tomorrow.
I will have a go at it. I cannot say I am completely satisfied, but I have had little time to think of this today.
Some gamestyles have surfaces suited better for them. While Doublea is right, a S&V player can do well on clay and a counterpuncher can do the same on grass, most players players who do that are exceptionally skilled at that gameplan (a la Sampras, Henman, Martina N, Hewitt, ect., ect.). So, let's take a match between Bizet and Sheila on clay,
Bizet chooses S&V for the first set, Sheila chooses to grind. In most cases grind would beat out S&V on clay, but since Bizet has such a big serve and such great volleys that he skills at that kind of game can overcome Sheila's grinding. Let me explain it another way. There can be different levels of success, poor, medium, and high (those can be worked on). These are based on certain skills that are required for that gameplan. Let's say Sheila's success level was poor, but she got a certain number of points added to the required skills since she was on clay, the best surface for grinding. Bizet's success level was high, and we can discuss later about whether or not points should be deducted using certain gameplans on different surfaces, and on the game plan alone Bizet would have the advantage. Percy would then proceed to calculate like normal. Did I make sense, or was it just rambling?
leftys_rock
It makes sense, but how will that factor into the probability?
x.doublea
PSALT wrote:
Not_Even_Amateur wrote:
I still just don't like it.
Let us turn this on its head:
think in Percy's shoes. He gets a "Grind" from me and "Aggressive Baseline" from dav. How does this fit into his calculation? How, exactly, can he measure the effectiveness of grind vs aggressive baseline for this exact match?
It is far, far, far, far too vague. There is no clear winner: you cannot just say well on clay grind is better, because then EVERYONE plays grind. I think it is far too vague. PSALT I liked your idea a lot more about being constricted to certain gameplans given your points! That is the kind of in between I was talking about but it needs more discussion...
I have an idea which I will post probably tomorrow.
I will have a go at it. I cannot say I am completely satisfied, but I have had little time to think of this today.
Some gamestyles have surfaces suited better for them. While Doublea is right, a S&V player can do well on clay and a counterpuncher can do the same on grass, most players players who do that are exceptionally skilled at that gameplan (a la Sampras, Henman, Martina N, Hewitt, ect., ect.). So, let's take a match between Bizet and Sheila on clay,
Bizet chooses S&V for the first set, Sheila chooses to grind. In most cases grind would beat out S&V on clay, but since Bizet has such a big serve and such great volleys that he skills at that kind of game can overcome Sheila's grinding. Let me explain it another way. There can be different levels of success, poor, medium, and high (those can be worked on). These are based on certain skills that are required for that gameplan. Let's say Sheila's success level was poor, but she got a certain number of points added to the required skills since she was on clay, the best surface for grinding. Bizet's success level was high, and we can discuss later about whether or not points should be deducted using certain gameplans on different surfaces, and on the game plan alone Bizet would have the advantage. Percy would then proceed to calculate like normal. Did I make sense, or was it just rambling?
You made perfect sense, but the big question is... is Percy going to go through this process of thinking for every single match? Or will he only go through this for member matches?
I don't believe that points should be deducted... just not fair. It's like handicapping Federer on clay just because he doesn't 'grind', and that he plays an aggressive game overall.
PSALT
leftys_rock wrote:
It makes sense, but how will that factor into the probability?
the winner of the 'gameplan battle' could have their probability raised a certain amount based on the levels of success. If one person had high, the other poor the high person would get a certain amount. while if the poor person was medium instead the high person would get a smaller amount added. make sense still? I will have to make sure that would work out (I do think it will, it's not that difficult) with Percy.
PSALT
x.doublea wrote:
PSALT wrote:
Not_Even_Amateur wrote:
I still just don't like it.
Let us turn this on its head:
think in Percy's shoes. He gets a "Grind" from me and "Aggressive Baseline" from dav. How does this fit into his calculation? How, exactly, can he measure the effectiveness of grind vs aggressive baseline for this exact match?
It is far, far, far, far too vague. There is no clear winner: you cannot just say well on clay grind is better, because then EVERYONE plays grind. I think it is far too vague. PSALT I liked your idea a lot more about being constricted to certain gameplans given your points! That is the kind of in between I was talking about but it needs more discussion...
I have an idea which I will post probably tomorrow.
I will have a go at it. I cannot say I am completely satisfied, but I have had little time to think of this today.
Some gamestyles have surfaces suited better for them. While Doublea is right, a S&V player can do well on clay and a counterpuncher can do the same on grass, most players players who do that are exceptionally skilled at that gameplan (a la Sampras, Henman, Martina N, Hewitt, ect., ect.). So, let's take a match between Bizet and Sheila on clay,
Bizet chooses S&V for the first set, Sheila chooses to grind. In most cases grind would beat out S&V on clay, but since Bizet has such a big serve and such great volleys that he skills at that kind of game can overcome Sheila's grinding. Let me explain it another way. There can be different levels of success, poor, medium, and high (those can be worked on). These are based on certain skills that are required for that gameplan. Let's say Sheila's success level was poor, but she got a certain number of points added to the required skills since she was on clay, the best surface for grinding. Bizet's success level was high, and we can discuss later about whether or not points should be deducted using certain gameplans on different surfaces, and on the game plan alone Bizet would have the advantage. Percy would then proceed to calculate like normal. Did I make sense, or was it just rambling?
You made perfect sense, but the big question is... is Percy going to go through this process of thinking for every single match? Or will he only go through this for member matches?
I don't believe that points should be deducted... just not fair. It's like handicapping Federer on clay just because he doesn't 'grind', and that he plays an aggressive game overall.
once everything is polished it shouldn't be as difficult, but I don't care either way. Percy could do both I would think.
leftys_rock
PSALT wrote:
leftys_rock wrote:
It makes sense, but how will that factor into the probability?
the winner of the 'gameplan battle' could have their probability raised a certain amount based on the levels of success. If one person had high, the other poor the high person would get a certain amount. while if the poor person was medium instead the high person would get a smaller amount added. make sense still? I will have to make sure that would work out (I do think it will, it's not that difficult) with Percy.
Ah ok. We could try this for Team Cup just to practice. But then again Team Cup is a while away.
x.doublea
leftys_rock wrote:
PSALT wrote:
leftys_rock wrote:
It makes sense, but how will that factor into the probability?
the winner of the 'gameplan battle' could have their probability raised a certain amount based on the levels of success. If one person had high, the other poor the high person would get a certain amount. while if the poor person was medium instead the high person would get a smaller amount added. make sense still? I will have to make sure that would work out (I do think it will, it's not that difficult) with Percy.
Ah ok. We could try this for Team Cup just to practice. But then again Team Cup is a while away.
Team Cup will be a good tournament to try it out... we would also get to see how it will function in doubles....
PSALT
Team Cup would be best, that or an exo. An exo people wouldn't care as much about winning and be more willing to experiment.
dav6789
I agree with x.doublea that their shouldn't be point changes just because someone's gameplan doesn't suit their surface. It would make everyone pick the same gameplan for each surface.
If we go through with this, I think an exho at the end of the season would be good to try it out. At Team Cup, it may get too complicated with doubles and everything.
PSALT
also, what about raising points based on H2H gameplans? I say this only because on grass Bizet will win the gameplan battle close to 100%
x.doublea
PSALT wrote:
also, what about raising points based on H2H gameplans? I say this only because on grass Bizet will win the gameplan battle close to 100%
That's a good idea, we could add it in with 'confidence' points. However, we would have to complete that full tour H2H which was sort of forgotten into obscurity....
Not_Even_Amateur
That still doesn't really make much sense to me.
Gameplan Battle:
Bizet v Sheila on clay
Bizet S&V
Sheila Grind
How can percy just decide: ok, Bizet wins this one because bla bla bla. That is not getting anything solid/concrete. It is far too vague. We definitely need a points system so that we can judge what level of that particular gameplan you need in relation to what surface in order to beat another type of gameplan. I am just not sure where we are going with this, nor how much it is really going to improve the game...
PSALT
Not_Even_Amateur wrote:
That still doesn't really make much sense to me.
Gameplan Battle:
Bizet v Sheila on clay
Bizet S&V
Sheila Grind
How can percy just decide: ok, Bizet wins this one because bla bla bla. That is not getting anything solid/concrete. It is far too vague. We definitely need a points system so that we can judge what level of that particular gameplan you need in relation to what surface in order to beat another type of gameplan. I am just not sure where we are going with this, nor how much it is really going to improve the game...
I have to leave now, but when I get back I will post a rough draft of skills, ect., ect..
PSALT
I will list each gameplan with their surface, points needed, and gameplan it matches up well against. Nothing is set in stone of course.
Serve and Volley
Surface - Grass
Gameplan - Grind
Poor - 10
Medium - 20
High - 25 (this can be changed to 30)
Grind
Surface - Clay
Gameplan - Variety
for points I think they can all be the same. if someone thinks they should be different gameplan to gameplan, feel free to speak up
Aggressive Baseline
Surface - Hard court
Gameplan - Percentage player
All-court
Surface - Carpet
Surface - Aggressive Baseline
Counterpuncher
Surface - Clay
Gameplan - All-court
Percentage Player
Surface - Hardcourt
Gameplan - Variety
Hit or Miss
Surface - Carpet
Gameplan - Aggressive Baseline
Variety
Surface - Clay
Gameplan - Hit or Miss
I am not happy with percentage or hit or miss. I had to throw out Net Rusher because it game me and uneven amount. If someone can think of another we can probably make it better.
). To get more ideas though was the point of us making a thread though. We will be doing something else too, but for now we can focus on this for the time being.