Premiership Coach 2011

[JPod_31]

http://www.mediafire.com/download/e01761mb14q8gt9/Base2013.zip

Has anyone played with it yet? Is it any good?

 

[uncustom]

Has anyone played with it yet? Is it any good?

I've been using them since they were first sent to me. They are pretty decent but there are players like Wingard, Vlastuin, Goodes and Mitchell who need their ratings boosted.

 

[The Sickness]

I've been using them since they were first sent to me. They are pretty decent but there are players like Wingard, Vlastuin, Goodes and Mitchell who need their ratings boosted.

There's probably also a few players who need to be dropped about 10-15 points (*Cough*David Mackay*cough*)

 

[Violent Wind]

Has anyone played with it yet? Is it any good?

I updated the ratings and then simmed a season with it last night and it works pretty well. Carlton were a bit OP which makes me sad being a Collingwood supporter, looks like i'll have to fix that up .

 

[uncustom]

I updated the ratings and then simmed a season with it last night and it works pretty well. Carlton were a bit OP which makes me sad being a Collingwood supporter, looks like i'll have to fix that up .

If you manage to fix up the ratings and make them as accurate as possibly, send me the updated lists and I will re-release them. If you go back to page 42 and 43 where I posted the link there are some people commenting on the ratings and what needs to be fixed. I think one of the guys did one for Collingwood, and there were a few for other teams.

 

[haydo]

Guys with the off season fast approaching us. I will be making the new 2014 lists as they happen. Once a player is moved through free Agency, then i will jump on and move that player on the game. So hopefully this time around we won't have to wait a while for the new lists. This time i'll be constantly updating as it happens.

 

[haydo]

Just something i've added into the game. Both Adelaide and Port Adelaide's home ground is now Adelaide Oval and not Aami Stadium

 

[Violent Wind]

Just something i've added into the game. Both Adelaide and Port Adelaide's home ground is now Adelaide Oval and not Aami Stadium

Pretty easy to do, just edit the Grounds .xml

 

[haydo]

Pretty easy to do, just edit the Grounds .xml

I know it's easy to do..But with the new lists that i'm making during the Pre-season small changes like this usually get ignored

 

[Violent Wind]

If you manage to fix up the ratings and make them as accurate as possibly, send me the updated lists and I will re-release them. If you go back to page 42 and 43 where I posted the link there are some people commenting on the ratings and what needs to be fixed. I think one of the guys did one for Collingwood, and there were a few for other teams.

Done.
http://www.mediafire.com/download/74lujw6pfjqh0w8/user_Base2013.rar

Some notes:
- The ages are not correct (as you know)
- Some teams like Geelong / Sydney / Hawks are under salary cap pressure. It's a shame there's no Cost of Living allowance for the Swannies in this game

 

[Violent Wind]

Simmed a season using my lists posted above.

Okay so North always seem to suck no matter how good i make them, and Essendon are always up there no matter how bad i make them
Seems accurate though (Richmond)

 

[Violent Wind]

Heath Hocking may be a little too good, someone should edit that

 

[haydo]

I'm also going to go through each individual player and change the ages to the current instead of the ages back in 2011

 

[Violent Wind]

I'm also going to go through each individual player and change the ages to the current instead of the ages back in 2011

Good job. Its a pain having 16 year olds running around

 

[kangle4]

At least Sydney look to have improved.

 

[uncustom]

Simmed a season using my lists posted above.

Okay so North always seem to suck no matter how good i make them, and Essendon are always up there no matter how bad i make them
Seems accurate though (Richmond)

From the ladder it seems your ratings would fit with the 2012 lists, Test them 2-3 more times and how teams perform, but looking from your ladder, you might need to make Freo and Geelong better and maybe lower the ratings of Collingwood, West Coast and Adelaide.
You could give North another boost, try get them a team rating of 73-77.

 

[haydo]

From the ladder it seems your ratings would fit with the 2012 lists, Test them 2-3 more times and how teams perform, but looking from your ladder, you might need to make Freo and Geelong better and maybe lower the ratings of Collingwood, West Coast and Adelaide.
You could give North another boost, try get them a team rating of 73-77.

I think a lot of it has to do with the club administration as well. If you look at the clubs like Collingwood compared to North and the differences between team morale, supporter confidence ect is really big. Try making North Melbourne a little higher in those stats and see if it improves the side.

 

[Violent Wind]

From the ladder it seems your ratings would fit with the 2012 lists, Test them 2-3 more times and how teams perform, but looking from your ladder, you might need to make Freo and Geelong better and maybe lower the ratings of Collingwood, West Coast and Adelaide.
You could give North another boost, try get them a team rating of 73-77.

Yeah i had a few more playthroughs and noticed WCE, COLL, STK and ESS were too powerful so I've lowered them a bit and made GEEL, NM, PORT, RICH and FREO stronger.

Before my edit:

After my edit:

It seems that the game totally ignores the team ratings RE: North Melbourne

I tried separating the ratings like this.

The best
Hawthorn 80
______________
Top Four Material
Fremantle 77
Geelong 77
Sydney 77
______________
The contenders
Collingwood 73
North Melbourne 73
______________
Top Eight Material
Port Adelaide 70
Richmond 70
Essendon 70
Carlton 70
______________
Upper half of the bottom eight
St Kilda 67
West Coast 67
Adelaide 67
______________
Lower half of the bottom eight
Footscray 63
Brisbane 63
Gold Coast 63
______________
The hopeless
Melbourne 60

 

[Violent Wind]

I will try to make North a rating of 77.
As haydo said it has to do with club equipment/staff as well.

 

[Violent Wind]

Here's a sim of north at 77.

As you can see they do not get much better, it's definitely due to the game thinking they are 'poor' because Collingwood are only rated 73 and seemed to have dominated in that simmed season, don't ask me to make Collingwood a 70 as i'm not degrading my favorite players any more!!!

Dunno what we are gonna do about North, they might literally become a powerhouse if the user controls them and spends time injecting some money into them improving the facilities, but as an AI team they are completely useless (Same for the Power).

Oh PC2011 logic, i despise you!

We can't really edit North's stats any more because the game already thinks they are gonna win the grand final LOL!

 

[uncustom]

Here's a sim of north at 77.

As you can see they do not get much better, it's definitely due to the game thinking they are 'poor' because Collingwood are only rated 73 and seemed to have dominated in that simmed season, don't ask me to make Collingwood a 70 as i'm not degrading my favorite players any more!!!

Dunno what we are gonna do about North, they might literally become a powerhouse if the user controls them and spends time injecting some money into them improving the facilities, but as an AI team they are completely useless (Same for the Power).

Oh PC2011 logic, i despise you!

We can't really edit North's stats any more because the game already thinks they are gonna win the grand final LOL!

I don't remember who, but a few pages ago, one of the guys were explaining how the ratings work. Like you can have priddis who is rated 90 as a inside mid and is a complete spud, and you can have someone ranked similiar or even at 80 and be a complete gun, sort of like Dangerfield when he is rated 85-90. Perhaps this is what is happening with north.

With West Coast and Adelaide, I think they could possibly be rated 70-73, they have some really talented players, and part of both clubs fall were due to injuries to Walker, Naitanui, Hurn etc.

Also, after you are done with all your changes, send me the lists, I will change the ages and a few other things and re-release them on this thread and the other thread.

haydo169 Don't forget about changing the ages to reflect the 2014 season and not the 2011 season.

 

[Violent Wind]

I don't remember who, but a few pages ago, one of the guys were explaining how the ratings work. Like you can have priddis who is rated 90 as a inside mid and is a complete spud, and you can have someone ranked similiar or even at 80 and be a complete gun, sort of like Dangerfield when he is rated 85-90. Perhaps this is what is happening with north.

With West Coast and Adelaide, I think they could possibly be rated 70-73, they have some really talented players, and part of both clubs fall were due to injuries to Walker, Naitanui, Hurn etc.

Also, after you are done with all your changes, send me the lists, I will change the ages and a few other things and re-release them on this thread and the other thread.

haydo169 Don't forget about changing the ages to reflect the 2014 season and not the 2011 season.

I am done making changes, I am personally happy with every player's rating except North Melbourne's players are now a little OP stats wise (you might wanna change that)

I just simmed another season and I noticed the rosters are very unpredictable and can result in some tight results RE: Ladder position.

Footscray shouldn't be that high when they are rated 63 but You're welcome to edit them as you see fit, and you obviously have more experience with knowing how this game works so here's hoping you can balance it out a little bit more.

http://www.mediafire.com/?74lujw6pfjqh0w8

Cheers.

 

[uncustom]

Violent Wind These posts may be of relevance, these were from a few pages back in this thread, courtesy of Simon_Nesbit

I've noticed that with most lists, certain teams always look better than they do on paper (Adelaide) while others always struggle despite their apparent strengths (Fremantle, North)

Reply To Above:

We had a few issues in getting the game balance right for both simulated and matchplay games - unlike 'stationary' sports like Cricket, Tennis or Baseball - AFL has far more variables than other sports. Unlike Soccer (low scoring) or Basketball (5 a side) the effect of a single individual can be (and is) greatly reduced in comparison with the overall team.

For example we had KPP players averaging 6 touches, 4 shots on goal under simulation - changed one simulation factor (IIRC a modification of KPD running off their opponent) and the next simulation it jumped to 24, 0 shots on goal.

In terms of structure, the match-day simulation essentially had 19 different programs (one was the ball itself) following 18 different sets of instructions, with 18 different limitations in maximum, average, and standard deviation output.

whilst I never saw the internals, it was immediately obvious how one change had sweeping issues accross the field. Certain types of players were just 'bad matchups' despite appearing to be relatively evenly matched - others found illogical matchups which just worked.

TBH, we never had the testing resources/feedback loop I wanted to get the ratings how they should be - in such a fluid environment any adjustment to match or simulation engine had massive ramifications on the eventual statistical output.

Given time and resources I think there was massive potential, but the cost base involved in development and testing is such that it will never be able to be a profitable enterprise deserving of the time and skill level required by the programmer.

and...

Its just the way the game works. Gets annoying sometimes, I hate how Priddis is rated 90+ and he always averages 17-20 disposals per game with 35+ opponent possessions per game.

Reply To Above:

The ratings you are talking about (presuming you mean "inside midfielder", "small forward", etc) are the basis of an accumulation of players statistics and have no direct influence on the game engine.

They were used to provide a 'cleaner' experience for the user. You could have two players with identical ratings have distinctly different attributes and in-game abilities, for example a 90-rated forward pocket with minimal ratngs elsewhere, might perform far worse than the 75-rated forward pocket, who was also 48 key forward and 60 outside midfielder. (Of course they could be a 90-rated inside-outside superstar, but lack the endurance to play that position).

 

[The Sickness]

Since my last (self-inflicted) hiccup, I've been having a bit of trouble when it comes to getting the game patched. Every time I've tried to patch the game, it results in an error every time I try to play it (error message, then it takes you to the license pop-up and then it crashes). Does anyone know how to fix this?

 

[uncustom]

I'm also going to go through each individual player and change the ages to the current instead of the ages back in 2011

With the ages, don't go through each individual player and change their age. Its a waste of time. Download a program like Notepad++ and then go to the find in files option and place the directory as the player folder, and then you can just type in the year you want to change and what to change it to, so you can type in <year>1984</year> and change that to <year>1981</year> (With the exact amount of spaces that come before in the same line otherwise you may stuff up and change Dustin Fletchers 1992 stats to 1989 when changing the 1992 ages) and it will make everyone born in 1984, 3 years older. Saves a lot of time. If you need me to do it, then let me know.