Warrior General Games

Straightforward.

The current HoF has nothing to do with a hall of fame and is just a seasonal all star list so why not just call a spade a spade.

Make a real HoF that only ranks Retired players and don't tell somebody what their rank will be on the HoF until after they retire. Don't count Legends games in the forever CPU league to the HoF rankings.

People can retire early to look cool on the top of the leaderboard but ultimately the pixels with the most illustrious careers will remain. Don't have to worry about balancing stats in different tiers against eachother because ultimately each pixel will play 30 games in each tier regardless so it balances out. Yes the sim will change and stuff is probably broken now that will be broken differently later but that is life.

I kinda like the idea of not knowing where you rank on the HoF list until you retire.

yeah i like this. make it all-stars. make it positional (i know it's available through a drop down menu but i'd get rid of the combined rankings all together). have an all-star game at the end of the season with the top 86 dots from each tier.

Originally posted by Laggo
Don't have to worry about balancing stats in different tiers against eachother because ultimately each pixel will play 30 games in each tier regardless so it balances out. Yes the sim will change and stuff is probably broken now that will be broken differently later but that is life.

Except a DE on an awful team playing against other awful teams and CPU getting 50 sacks a season isn't as good as a DE on a good team playing against top competition getting 45 sacks a season.

You still have to take strength of schedule into account.

Originally posted by Corndog
Except a DE on an awful team playing against other awful teams and CPU getting 50 sacks a season isn't as good as a DE on a good team playing against top competition getting 45 sacks a season.

You still have to take strength of schedule into account.

Okay but you realize what you are saying is pretty much impossible to accomplish in a way that will create parity?

How do you take "strength of schedule" into account when evaluating stats?

Do you do it by record? So a 1 and 0 team is worth more in stats than an 0 and 1 team? Does that make sense? Winning percentage? Same problem. By tiers? We've already explained why this doesn't work.

You can separate competition by tiers to pretend the problem doesn't exist but not only does that have nothing to do with Strength of Schedule, it will get problematic when people start leaving their teams at level 4/9/14/19/24 and rejoining the next season under the same tier. I believe there are 3 level 4 rookies in the CPU leagues on the defensive HoF doing just that.

Strength of schedule certainly has to play some part. Otherwise it is just a boring numbers game and everyone is running CPU teams handing it off to their HB 80 times a game regardless of win or loss.

Originally posted by Laggo
Okay but you realize what you are saying is pretty much impossible to accomplish in a way that will create parity?

How do you take "strength of schedule" into account when evaluating stats?

Do you do it by record? So a 1 and 0 team is worth more in stats than an 0 and 1 team? Does that make sense? Winning percentage? Same problem.

If only there was a ranking system in place that ranked teams in comparison to other teams in the game.

So you artificially inflate somebodies stats because their team is good, and you diminish someone because their team is bad?

Isn't that just a "rich get richer" scenario where the networks stomping on rookies inflate even higher into the rankings, and individual players or ragtag teams are no longer able to compete?

Or are you talking about the opposite, where you inflate somebodies performance if the other team is "good".

So in Sophomore how do you evaluate a team that replaced half it's offense at the beginning of the season? A team can be the strongest in the league but play the two strongest other teams in the first two games and start a season 0-2. Is the guy who has to play that team in their third game just fucked because not only will he struggle to get stats, but his stats will be arbitrarily reduced anyway?

Or in Rookie, where CPU teams play CPU teams and get wins and losses arbitrarily regardless of their own level of play.

Do you do it based on Ladder rank? So what does it mean to get a TD against the #1 ranked team in your tier versus the #10? The #50? The #100? Do you just swear at the computer monitor when your league is filled with teams who have shitty ladder ranks so it's impossible for you to accrue enough "valuable stats" to compete even though you are dominating other people with your play?

I really don't see a magic formula here.

Originally posted by Corndog
If only there was a ranking system in place that ranked teams in comparison to other teams in the game.

I was worried this is what you were thinking, and there are obvious problems with this.

About half of your games are League games and you have no control over the strength of the teams in your league. So, depending on the league I join - I could be throwing away up to 50% of my stats for the season because I didn't bother to scout and make sure my competition was "good enough". This feels extremely restricting as a player, is unintuitive, and bad game design. It sucks as a player to find out two weeks after you join a team that there are too many CPU teams in your league and so you are SOL to make the all star list despite playing well because you joined the wrong league.

Lets say you make a sliding scale so the #1 team in your tier is worth 200% of the stats, the middle team is worth 100% and the bottom is worth 1% or something. Remember, 85% of the teams in GLB are average or otherwise not good, so playing a team ranked 140th and playing a team ranked 280th for a top 40 team is pretty much the same thing. Yet playing at the highest level heavily restricts your success. I would estimate around a factor of 5 for discussions sake (So for every 5 TD's I can get against an average team, I get 1 TD playing top 40 kind of competition). So now the leader in the Offensive Seasonal Ranking is that QB in the sweet spot on a #70-90~ ranked ladder team that is not good enough to crack the top 50 (but good enough to acquire some stats in those contests) but good enough to crush and still get ladder games against teams outside that bracket.

This kind of system is also just systematically fucked in Rookie where Ladder Ranks change drastically over the first half of the season from game to game. It would just be a crapshoot cross-your-fingers contest to hope you got the "lucky string of games" to make the list.

You aren't creating a new profound scenario to find the best performer of the season, just another set of arbitrary adding and subtracting that produces a winner by circumstance.

Eh, you are really overreacting to the strength of schedule. If you are performing on a high enough level to where you are really interested in the HoF it is very likely you had a lot of quality games during your career.

Originally posted by Laggo
You aren't creating a new profound scenario to find the best performer of the season, just another set of arbitrary adding and subtracting that produces a winner by circumstance.

1). Which players on the list in season 1 didn't deserve to be there?
2). Which players weren't highly ranked that should have been but were screwed by arbitrarity?

Originally posted by bhall43
Eh, you are really overreacting to the strength of schedule. If you are performing on a high enough level to where you are really interested in the HoF it is very likely you had a lot of quality games during your career.

I just don't like it when people fiddle with the value of things based on conditions that are not exactly representative of what they are trying to represent in the larger picture.

Once we switch to tiers I will be #1 anyway so it's not as if I care a whole lot - i'm just amazed at the lack of foresight and general poor game design I am witnessing here.

Doing strength of schedule based on the ladder only works with the supposition that the ladder is an accurate and proportional representation of the skill level of said team within the tier. This is not a true assumption. The middle team in the ladder is not half as good as the #1 team in the ladder. It is probably close to 20% as good, if even.

To make a videogame analogy, it's like altering the value of a kill in a Call of Duty match based on the rank of the person that you killed. It sounds good in theory but it relies on the idea that the rank of the person you killed is an accurate representation of the chance they have to kill you 100% of the time. This is certainly false, you can spawn right behind someone and have the opportunity to kill them without a chance for retaliation.

Presumably, the goal behind putting in such a change in either example is to improve the consistency of the rankings and ensure that the best (most skilled) player in the game is at the top of the chart. Yet by fiddling with the numbers you accomplish the exact opposite. The person who was in the "right place at the right time" gains an advantage. Whether that's what league you're in or where you spawned.

Obviously, you can reduce the effect of this altering to a small enough number where things more or less are unaffected - but if you do that then why even bother fudging the numbers in the first place?

Again, GLB2 is a game about exploiting. Basically. Winning in GLB is more or less moving from exploit to exploit. It always has been. No matter what system you use somebody is going to have set up the right scheme, have put themselves in the right position, etc. to take advantage. I don't like when people use eventualities as an excuse to do unnecessary things.

Ignoring Corn's post because I ain't got time fo' dat, obviously. Maybe if GLB had a real database I could connect and SQL query or something.

Again I think you are overreacting to the thought of SoS. If you are a player doing great things that deserves to be mentioned atop a list for best player, it is unlikely your team is doing bad. But for arguments sake, take the current standings of QB's. Looks pretty good would you not say? Who is being snubbed because of SoS?

Originally posted by Laggo
Ignoring Corn's post because I ain't got time fo' dat, obviously. Maybe if GLB had a real database I could connect and SQL query or something.

Wait, what? You think we store all of our data in a notebook that Bort keeps or what?

Of course we have a real database lol

Originally posted by Laggo
To make a videogame analogy, it's like altering the value of a kill in a Call of Duty match based on the rank of the person that you killed.

Battlefield 3 had a "score" that was based on the score of people you killed and the people that killed you.