Warrior General Games

so after your 4 building seasons, where do teams enter the ladder? don't see that in the file

Originally posted by reddogrw
so after your 4 building seasons, where do teams enter the ladder? don't see that in the file

Good question. This is still something that needs ironing out honestly. Though its a question mark for ANY league structure, so not necessarily an issue with a 1-wide ladder.


Originally posted by from the OP What still needs ironing out...

1. Exactly how to integrate the new plateau teams to the tier ladder each season (would need a sorting algorithm based on merit, but ideally new teams get placed close to the middle tiers, NOT at the bottom). Though it'd be nice if a non-plateau team's success/failure can influence where a team gets sorted to in their first plateau season.



Options off the top of my head:
1. d41-80, d81-120, and d121-d160 each get their own mini ladder, and how teams do in that should effect where they get injected at plateau.

2. If Bort fixed the global rank calc to actually make sense, this could be used to sort priority.

3. Insert entire "new" plateau league tiers somewhere slightly below the middle of the ladder (in-effect expanding the ladder from the middle)


=====

I'm not sure, and am open to suggestion. Ideally, we put new plateau teams into whatever league they will be most competitive in (and maybe protect the top 3 tiers with no new plateau teams), but I'm not sure exactly how to achieve that formulaically and repeatably.

This is definitely a real question/issue until s111, (due to the s100 built team surge), but after s111 it's less of an issue in that teams are going to "die" every season and everyone ends up getting "moved up" tiers organically just by those teams dieing (so there are natural openings to use for new plateau teams for example)

Anything we do will still be superior to the old system of "half of natty pro is CPU, so new teams can go to natty pro or die in regional pro if they were awful".

I guess as a team that just completed 4 years of building, if winning the title in my first season in plateau doesn't allow me to get to WL I am against it

Originally posted by reddogrw
I guess as a team that just completed 4 years of building, if winning the title in my first season in plateau doesn't allow me to get to WL I am against it

Why? You have 7 seasons of plateau now instead of 5. And in the proposed, Tier 2 and Tier 3 leagues are going to be more competitive than any non-WL league that existed previously.

You're thinking from the perspective of "everything except WL is a worthless shift-fest". But this suggestion is "renovate leagues below WL so they aren't a worthless shit-fest".

Surely 2-3 seasons of an A+ team journeying to WL/Tier 1 (it the leagues are competitive) isn't bad when we just gained +2 seasons of plateau. Right?

=====

Noting the OP suggests widening the ladder from 1-wide to 2-wide once we hit 10 leagues. In theory this could be changed if we feel 9 tiers is too much, but keep in mind generally teams that have demoted in their initial season are never going to be sniffing WL/Tier 1 regardless of league structure, so it's not like the depth is keeping them down.

The problem with making the ladder "wider" is you in effect are trying to group the "closest" 24 or 36 or 48 teams instead of the closest 12 teams, which will inevitably make that grouping weaker with a higher variance in talent with a lack of competitiveness.

Originally posted by WiSeIVIaN
Why? You have 7 seasons of plateau now instead of 5. And in the proposed, Tier 2 and Tier 3 leagues are going to be more competitive than any non-WL league that existed previously.

You're thinking from the perspective of "everything except WL is a worthless shift-fest". But this suggestion is "renovate leagues below WL so they aren't a worthless shit-fest".

Surely 2-3 seasons of an A+ team journeying to WL/Tier 1 (it the leagues are competitive) isn't bad when we just gained +2 seasons of plateau. Right?

=====

Noting the OP suggests widening the ladder from 1-wide to 2-wide once we hit 10 leagues. In theory this could be changed if we feel 9 tiers is too much, but keep in mind generally teams that have demoted in their initial season are never going to be sniffing WL/Tier 1 regardless of league structure, so it's not like the depth is keeping them down.

The problem with making the ladder "wider" is you in effect are trying to group the "closest" 24 or 36 or 48 teams instead of the closest 12 teams, which will inevitably make that grouping weaker with a higher variance in talent with a lack of competitiveness.

historically, there have been 4 National Pro teams with about 2-3 teams tops worth a shit

unless we magically get MORE quality teams after the re-boot (and I fear there will be fewer teams at that level), there's only going to be room for one more league besides WL that will offer competitive games

so the other seasons before then (if an up and coming team gets put into that league) will be the same waste of time

previously, you only had 1 wasted season (National Pro) before WL

I don't want to have a wasted season, then a somewhat competitive season and then WL

Don't say the top 3 or 4 leagues will be competitive; there weren't that many good teams before

Red, the transition from 5/12 plateau seasons to 7/11 plateau seasons (if the same number of dots exist) results in 50% more plateau teams and 50% more "quality" plateau teams.

Quantity doesn’t necessarily mean quality. I think that good WL competitive teams will be the same or about that number. Hope to be wrong and have an abundance of talent but I think this not going to happen.

Originally posted by WiSeIVIaN


So it sounds like I have the Mauler 100% behind the OP.



I didn't say that, but am 100% behind what red is saying. Let's not make things more complicated than they have to be. I also agree that more quantity doesn't exactly mean more quality like Ken said and I personally do not see a sudden influx of quality builders as well as top coordinators at this point either. The only thing I agree with is less CPU teams at the Pro Level which probably means less leagues at that LVL TBH which may or may not work. I also don't see the sense of prolonging any team getting to the WL just because of any ranking system as there are slow build teams which are some of the best teams/coordinators in GLB and to penalize them is ridiculous. That is my opinion.

Originally posted by Mauler
I didn't say that, but am 100% behind what red is saying. Let's not make things more complicated than they have to be. I also agree that more quantity doesn't exactly mean more quality like Ken said and I personally do not see a sudden influx of quality builders as well as top coordinators at this point either. The only thing I agree with is less CPU teams at the Pro Level which probably means less leagues at that LVL TBH which may or may not work. I also don't see the sense of prolonging any team getting to the WL just because of any ranking system as there are slow build teams which are some of the best teams/coordinators in GLB and to penalize them is ridiculous. That is my opinion.

+1

Originally posted by WiSeIVIaN
Thanks for the reply Rob!


Didn't want to flood the responses so truncated the rest of this response. You're welcome for the response, thanks for the opening gambit!

Originally posted by WiSeIVIaN
Keep in mind this ladder and the OP is Plateau Only. Any age brackets must only be in leagues with the same age bracket, obviously.

Thanks, this makes better sense to me know and I can support it more in its entirety.

Originally posted by WiSeIVIaN
I also want to note in your proposed pyramid structure you will still be demoting teams from WL into the 3rd strongest league in GLB (you just don't know which of the two NP leagues is stronger/weaker) so that is not a real criticism of the ladder.

A fair enough point, though to be clear, isn't a criticism of the ladder but more the "double drop down" of an 11th place team (former T1) that will then likely double jump back up the following year. Remember, they will be facing 1/3rd (4/12) of their games in the new season against previously T4 or T5 teams (2 of each) in your model. That might prove to be a pretty big drop. It's also a pretty big jump up on the flip side, especially for a non-affiliated team. (and affiliated teams might swap rosters anyway to whatever dots they want, so they're only incentive is to keep moving more teams higher and re-shuffle)

I think you might convince me that a single double-jump up team and a single double jump down team might be better off with more moving 1up or 1down. (sneaking in Mario references) Once the initial leagues shake-out, with 7 (maybe?) seasons of plateau, its unlikely you'll need as big of jumps since teams will be very statically where they belong once they get there. Just to remind you, we aren't talking about the #1 teams only (that are far and away the better team) you're talking about #2 teams being jumped 2 spots too. Just to look at this season alone, the average championship game was decided by an average of ~31 points. Those #1s probably going to do ok moving up 2 leagues, but those #2s might be far behind.

I messed with your sheet and there's not really a great way to do it, without having to "decide" who is 7th vs. 8th in T1 and who is 5th vs. 6th in T9 which may come down to tie-breakers.

Again, none of this is the end of the world, and better than what we have now probably, but I do think there's some wiggle room in here for finding some balance.

Originally posted by WiSeIVIaN
Red, the transition from 5/12 plateau seasons to 7/11 plateau seasons (if the same number of dots exist) results in 50% more plateau teams and 50% more "quality" plateau teams.

not if I waste a season or two in low level plateau level leagues

already wasting 4 seasons building dots

Originally posted by reddogrw
not if I waste a season or two in low level plateau level leagues

already wasting 4 seasons building dots

Previously you were "wasting" at least 8 seasons to get to WL, by your definition. Now you are upset at the idea of not being insta-WL after 4 seasons?

Red (and Mauler) here is the rub:

-In the previous system, everything EXCEPT WL was broken. That is because there were too many Natty Pro leagues and everyone instantly got to be one of 48 natty pro teams at plateau. This meant that Natty Pro was a cpu-filled cesspool with talent gaps causing everything except 1-2 playoff games to be complete garbage.

-I am trying to FIX more than 1 league in the game, to make more than JUST WL to be enjoyable, while keeping WL as it was intact as the top league of the game.

-In the old system, for the most part only ~4 different networks got to enjoy WL, and the rest of the game, who wasn't quite good enough for WL, sat in CPU-infestest worthless anti-fun leagues in Natty Pro. These Natty Pro leagues gave way too large a jump to WL, did not give competitive games more than a few a season for people to try and learn, and were generally not fun for anyone.

In summary, if your complaint is you don't want a new system that fixes non-WL leagues to be competitive because it might take 1 more season to hit WL, my response is I don't think your opinion on this topic correctly considers what's best for the majority of people playing the game.

Also, fwiw, If the Old system is kept, but condensed to 2 Natty Pro leagues, that is the same number of non-WL leagues (2) that have the ability to promote to WL (T1) in the system I proposed. The only way to keep the "insta-WL in 1 season" access is by illogically keeping way too many teams in the exact same tier below WL, but that has proven to be super non-competitive and non-fun. It also logically makes no sense to keep all non-WL teams in the same tier, since it's impossible to have any sort of balance.

Whether you agree with my OP exactly or not, CLEARLY there must be some better way than the static CPU hell that existed in s99. I'm just asking you open yourself to improvement/progress. Also if I'm somehow wrong and there are only 36 human plateau teams at a time (unlikely) you can earn a WL promotion in your first plateau season, npz.

Originally posted by robponce
A fair enough point, though to be clear, isn't a criticism of the ladder but more the "double drop down" of an 11th place team (former T1) that will then likely double jump back up the following year. Remember, they will be facing 1/3rd (4/12) of their games in the new season against previously T4 or T5 teams (2 of each) in your model. That might prove to be a pretty big drop. It's also a pretty big jump up on the flip side, especially for a non-affiliated team. (and affiliated teams might swap rosters anyway to whatever dots they want, so they're only incentive is to keep moving more teams higher and re-shuffle)

I think you might convince me that a single double-jump up team and a single double jump down team might be better off with more moving 1up or 1down. (sneaking in Mario references) Once the initial leagues shake-out, with 7 (maybe?) seasons of plateau, its unlikely you'll need as big of jumps since teams will be very statically where they belong once they get there. Just to remind you, we aren't talking about the #1 teams only (that are far and away the better team) you're talking about #2 teams being jumped 2 spots too. Just to look at this season alone, the average championship game was decided by an average of ~31 points. Those #1s probably going to do ok moving up 2 leagues, but those #2s might be far behind.

I messed with your sheet and there's not really a great way to do it, without having to "decide" who is 7th vs. 8th in T1 and who is 5th vs. 6th in T9 which may come down to tie-breakers.

Again, none of this is the end of the world, and better than what we have now probably, but I do think there's some wiggle room in here for finding some balance.

Rob, I truly appreciate the perspective and well thought out responses!

For comparison:
Old System: Teams #9-#12 demote from WL to play against teams #13-#60.
Proposed system: Teams #7-#10 demote from WL to play against teams #13-#24. Team's #11-12 demote to play against teams #25-#36.

In the old system maybe 18 teams existed at a time that were "WL Quality", and teams tended to bounce between WL (Top12 team) and Natty Pro (top60 teams). The old system was unforgiving to teams slightly below WL quality, since they'd get lucky with a playoff win or two, then go perhaps winless in the top league.

My point being, a jump 2 leagues is still a smaller jump then we've ever seen in GLB's modern history, and is akin to the 2-into-1 jumps that existed in GLB's old pyramid structure (Pro was top12, AAA was top36, winners from either AAA league could go into Pro). I am just trying to put one AAA league higher than the other AAA league, so to speak.

Other reasons I encourage the "2 teams double promo/double demotion".
1. As you've seen in this thread, people are going to be upset at the idea of actually "climbing" the ladder to get to their precious T1/WL. Double promotions gives these guys who are truly dominant a fast-pass to earn their way to WL quicker.

2. Generally 1-2 teams are downright better than the rest of the league. It's not unrealistic to give them a boost to a higher league.

3. Keep in mind, team's winning/climbing the lower leagues are not necessarily going to be worse teams after the first plateau wave, more often they will just be younger teams.

4. The biggest reason is I think layered rewards/penalties in the regular season is the objective key to making GLB more fun and more competitive. Currently there are 2 buckets: Top8 teams make playoffs = effectively same regular season result, bottom 4 teams miss playoffs and WL demote. If you're ensured to make either bucket, you don't need gameplan or try or do anything special since it doesn't matter at all. Further in the old system with all the CPU's, all natty pro human teams got free playoffs, making the regular season mean absolutely nothing.

Instead making cascading outcomes (both for WL and other leagues) gives an entire layer of importance to the regular season.

-Being a top2 seed and getting a bye week, effectively doubles your chances in the playoffs, so people will want that.
-Making only 6 instead of 8 teams make the playoffs, makes that crunch for playoff spots much more stressful between the 5th/6th/7th/8th best teams.
-And even if you're having a bad season, instead of throwing in the towel and saying FML, the bottom 2 teams double demoting gives significant incentive to try to get upsets and wins even in a lost season as a bottom 4 team.


P.S.
Just a general note, that s100 results don't mean anything due to level gaps, people who 0cares rookie, and the s100 leagues not being sorted in any way at all.

Originally posted by Kenshinzen
Quantity doesn’t necessarily mean quality. I think that good WL competitive teams will be the same or about that number. Hope to be wrong and have an abundance of talent but I think this not going to happen.

Do you think the way natty Pro was set-up in s99 (12 WL teams and 48 Natty Pro teams filled with CPU's) is the ideal structure for GLB?

Originally posted by WiSeIVIaN
Do you think the way natty Pro was set-up in s99 (12 WL teams and 48 Natty Pro teams filled with CPU's) is the ideal structure for GLB?




just consolidate National Pro by getting rid of all CPU teams

also, don't have a Regional Pro unless all 48 spots in National Pro are filled with full teams

push the CPU teams down to rookie or some other league where there are holes