Warrior General Games

Originally posted by DigitalDaggers
yeah, tying fame to higher level eq would certainly help to make fame more important.

In order to tie fame into anything you would have to work on how fame is gained by a player, it really seems like the most controlling factor is player level instead of what he does in a game.

It would be cool to see fame creating advertisement revenue for the team.

Originally posted by Pietasters
In order to tie fame into anything you would have to work on how fame is gained by a player

this

Thanks for helping me find this Tuba

Here's is the old thread I had regardling abolishing league structure. If you read into the body you can see details regarding scheduling and the tournaments.

THAT is a structure I think most people would enjoy...If GLB was that way, I guarantee I'd buy more flex in the future.

http://goallineblitz.com/game/forum_thread.pl?thread_id=3327958

Originally posted by DigitalDaggers
yeah, tying fame to higher level eq would certainly help to make fame more important.

But fame has always been busted from the start.

Originally posted by Mightyhalo
But fame has always been busted from the start.

we have always intended to add more depth to fame and work on fame calculations. in time i feel we will make fame changes.





but yeah, this thread is all about league restructuring ideas!

leagues are a tough nut to crack. I would just condense. We have needed it for several seasons now. I think you still need 100k players to fill the AA and above leagues, but last I looked there were only around 75K players level 45+.

Adding the new 42 and 46 caps didn't help matters imo.

Originally posted by DONKEIDIC
Originally posted by beenlurken

Not trolling... seriously, I really want DD to answer that.

In other words, I assume the problem that he is trying to solve is to increase competition/parity in the leagues (more specifically the higher leagues.. AA+)? If that is the case, implementing a new league structure will only be another bandaid.

What would you suggest then?


The goal being to keep the leagues as competitive as possible.

I assume you meant "the goal being to "make" the leagues as competitive as possible". Also, I assume when you say "leagues" you are referring to the higher leagues (AA+) because it is just not possible to balance competition in the lower leagues as long as we continue to allow players to build dots for future performance at the expense of present performance.

Before someone says game play in the minors is as important as game play in the higher levels... there is a reason the overwhelming majority build this way... they care more about their dots performance in their small prime that they are willing to sacrifice the majority of their dots career for this small window.

That said, the problem that prohibits consistent competition in the higher leagues is two fold...

It is impossible for teams to manage decline so that they may remain competitive season in and out (current system forces team into a cycle where they waste a season or two rebuilding... look at MPHD). Imo, the problem starts here. Decline should force player turnover... not team turnover. If you look back at why competition was so great for season 1 players it was because teams were able to stay at a peak competitive level for 10+ seasons. Teams could maintain their level of competitiveness while they worked to improve upon it. With decline forcing teams to turnover huge parts of their roster each season it becomes tiresome to continually have to take 2 steps backwards to try and get 1 step ahead... if you are lucky (some teams struggle just to get back to their peak competitiveness). Why can we allow for the team performance to plateau (instead of peak/valley)? It would increase the amount of competitive teams... increasing the overall competition. It is a shame that teams like MPHD are forced to spend a season or two being noncompetitive.

Also, there are not enough end-game dots for all AA+ teams to field competitive rosters (when talking about the above everyone says. Sure, not all coordinates are created equal... however teams have no chance when not only are the at a game planning disadvantage but also are unable to field a full, competitive roster (btw... decreasing the roster limit is not the answer). Sure certain teams will always have the cream of the crop in players and coordinators (that is nature of the game) but if we increase end-game dots at least teams can narrow the gap by competitive starters and backups so they have a fighting chance to pull an upset.

Question is how can help teams manage the decline better and increase the amount of end-game dots? True extended plateau. It would give teams a larger window to turnover their rosters (sure there will be teams that stick with the same roster and are forced to rebuild, but most will not). It allows dots from multiple generations to compete with each other at the same level (using the model below a season 10 player would have no advantage over a season 8 player in terms of boosts, va's, sps, etc).

As is being discussed in this forum...
http://goallineblitz.com/game/forum_thread.pl?thread_id=3941058&page=5#35255466

Here is a decent model of what extending the plateau would look like (involves shortening the building process)

Season 1 - level 8 times, boost 3 times = level 12
Season 2 - level 8 times, boost 3 times = level 23
Season 3 - level 8 times, boost 3 times = level 34
Season 4 - level 7 times, boost 3 times = level 44
Season 5 - level 7 times, boost 3 times = level 54
Season 6 - level 6 times, boost 3 times = level 63
Season 7 - level 6 times, boost 3 times = level 72
Season 8 - player has hit plateau, don't increase/decrease = level 72
Season 9 - player has hit plateau, don't increase/decrease = level 72
Season 10 - player has hit plateau, don't increase/decrease = level 72
Season 11 - player starts to decline

That said, I think it would HELP to condense the leagues with a different sturcture... but it is not the solution. The plateau should be lengthened and building process should be shortened first.

ETA: If you just condense the league it does not solve the problem that teams face by having to manage the harsh rules of decline. Teams will still peak/valley with how competitive they can be from season to season.

Originally posted by DigitalDaggers
Originally posted by Mightyhalo

But fame has always been busted from the start.

we have always intended to add more depth to fame and work on fame calculations. in time i feel we will make fame changes.





but yeah, this thread is all about league restructuring ideas!

Again, (not trying to be a dick) what would be the goal(s) of restructuring the league?

Originally posted by DigitalDaggers
we have always intended to add more depth to fame and work on fame calculations. in time i feel we will make fame changes.





but yeah, this thread is all about league restructuring ideas!

For the purposes of enticing players to sign with the highest ranked team possible, Fame ought to be based solely on the number of games a player has played at any given league-level, with the top-tier league offering the most Fame, and the minors offering the least.

This is actually the most intuitive way of going about it, too, and it doesn't require any complicated formula to determine whether an 80-rush is the equivalent of a sack, etc. Easy peasy.

Step 1: make CPU players better.
Step 2: order leagues and conferences by average player age and average effective level
Step 3: make the "rivalry" system push away teams that got a blowout
Step 4: WARNING THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ONE: Statistically study the number of leagues necessary per each level "rank" or level "threshold" and just adjust leagues accordingly. Scrap the pyramid if it is not sustainable, predict _EXACTLY_ how many leagues and teams need to be to fit in all players (taking in consideration positions too)

Optional: keep the pro and WL based on results.

But anyway, I'm as usual gonna be ignored here, as are all posters who cared for the game and had the decency to suggest well-fundamented ideas in the proper forum, so just skip over this post and keep doing the wrong decisions.

Originally posted by Hagalaz
Step 1: make CPU players better.
Step 2: order leagues and conferences by average player age and average effective level
Step 3: make the "rivalry" system push away teams that got a blowout
Step 4: WARNING THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ONE: Statistically study the number of leagues necessary per each level "rank" or level "threshold" and just adjust leagues accordingly. Scrap the pyramid if it is not sustainable, predict _EXACTLY_ how many leagues and teams need to be to fit in all players (taking in consideration positions too)

Optional: keep the pro and WL based on results.

But anyway, I'm as usual gonna be ignored here, as are all posters who cared for the game and had the decency to suggest well-fundamented ideas in the proper forum, so just skip over this post and keep doing the wrong decisions.


i totally didn't skip over or ignore your post.

FACE!

Get rid of AE and VA's, walla 90% of the issues are gone. Also make the plateau last 3-4 seasons and boom this game is 100x as competitive.

Originally posted by blln4lyf
Get rid of AE and VA's, walla 90% of the issues are gone. Also make the plateau last 3-4 seasons and boom this game is 100x as competitive.

+1

Originally posted by DigitalDaggers
Originally posted by Hagalaz

Step 1: make CPU players better.
Step 2: order leagues and conferences by average player age and average effective level
Step 3: make the "rivalry" system push away teams that got a blowout
Step 4: WARNING THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ONE: Statistically study the number of leagues necessary per each level "rank" or level "threshold" and just adjust leagues accordingly. Scrap the pyramid if it is not sustainable, predict _EXACTLY_ how many leagues and teams need to be to fit in all players (taking in consideration positions too)

Optional: keep the pro and WL based on results.

But anyway, I'm as usual gonna be ignored here, as are all posters who cared for the game and had the decency to suggest well-fundamented ideas in the proper forum, so just skip over this post and keep doing the wrong decisions.


i totally didn't skip over or ignore your post.

FACE!

But you did mine...

Originally posted by blln4lyf
Get rid of AE and VA's, walla 90% of the issues are gone. Also make the plateau last 3-4 seasons and boom this game is 100x as competitive.

But since that's not gonna happen make plateau last 10 seasons, make the RNG barely favor 120 in a skill over 70 and maybe we will have half as much competition as if going with the quoted post.