Warrior General Games

On defense, only DEs and LBs are in the top 100. On offense, 1 WR and the rest are QBs and HBs in the top 75. Really? That is ridiculous. "Other stats" need to mean more than they do...like pancakes, reverse pankcakes, receptions allowed percentage for DBs, etc...

Honestly they should just get rid of the "overall" HoFs, by that meaning the "all ages tier" hall of fame and the "all positions by tier" hall of fame.

Just do it by positions based on age.

Nobody who was not created the first season will ever crack the top 10 on the Overall HoF. I can barely crack top 20 as a rookie by doubling and in some cases tripling the sophmore stats near me because they are weighted so high. This will only get worse if a Rookie is trying to beat a veteran, or even higher.

All positions by tier is broken because of sacks and passing touchdowns/passing yards being 10x more valuable than everything else. What's the use in a listing of all positions if the top 90% will always be QB's or DE's/LB's who blitz?

Originally posted by Laggo
Nobody who was not created the first season will ever crack the top 10 on the Overall HoF.

What? lol

It's pretty much impossible as a Rookie to do it versus Sophmoress, so unless the hidden stat favoritism gets smaller as the tiers rise (unlikely judging by how you seem to approach this) it looks like it will never be possible.

Originally posted by Laggo
It's pretty much impossible as a Rookie to do it versus Veterans, so unless the hidden stat favoritism gets smaller as the tiers rise (unlikely judging by how you seem to approach this) it looks like it will never be possible.

Except for when, you know, they retire.

And there is no "hidden stat favoritism"

I will never understand why you think it's okay to feature a default HoF listing that only Season 1 dots can crack the top of for the first 5 seasons of the game's life.

... Wasn't that the entire problem with GLB1 that made the early seasons so lame for players who didn't sign up season 1 day 1?

Originally posted by Corndog
And there is no "hidden stat favoritism"

lol bull, we already went through this

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.

So which is it?

Strength of schedule is not "hidden stat favoritism"

If there is no "hidden stat favoritism" than if you look at these two QB stat lines why does the following occur:

10125 Passing Yards, 70 Pass TD's, 57.2% Completion, 96.9 QB Rating
11602 Passing Yards, 114 Pass TD's, 55.8% Completion, 98.1 QB Rating

Worth a #1 and #18 respectively

Keep in mind the #17 QB has 6800 yards and 43 TD's.

You are arguing semantics to defend a broken system. Why not defend the system instead?

What is the benefit here in having the default HoF listing (aka the only one 75% of people will ever see) be unattainable for dots that were not created day 1?

Edit: If you are referring to "stat favoritism" in regards to position (which is not really what I was talking about but okay), lets not pretend sacks aren't pretty heavily weighted (to the degree that you need to be a blitzing LB to make the LB HoF, ever take a look at that list and compared sack to tackle numbers?)

Do you not understand what strength of schedule means?

Originally posted by Laggo

What is the benefit here in having the default HoF listing (aka the only one 75% of people will ever see) be unattainable for dots that were not created day 1?

Originally posted by Laggo
I will never understand why you think it's okay to feature a default HoF listing that only Season 1 dots can crack the top of for the first 5 seasons of the game's life.


It would be nice if there were answers to this question instead of facetious retorts.

Sorry for not answering your loaded questions to your satisfaction.

How can I phrase that question in a way that is more amicable for you?

"What is the motivation/goal behind the current ranking system that orders the default HoF list?"

Is that more neutral?

Originally posted by Laggo
I will never understand why you think it's okay to feature a default HoF listing that only Season 1 dots can crack the top of for the first 5 seasons of the game's life.

... Wasn't that the entire problem with GLB1 that made the early seasons so lame for players who didn't sign up season 1 day 1?

Because its the HoF and not the Pro Bowl. HoF rewards (actually demands) career longevity, not instant comparisons.

Was Adrian Peterson a HoF-er after one season? Two? Even three?