Warrior General Games

This would be a large structural change, but one I think could help new, and old players alike. Currently when you buy a team you join a league and compete. Next year you just compete again, NFL style, so on and so on. The thought then would be to "get gud" if you're a new owner.

For older owners that want a challenge it can be frustrating if you're steamrolling new comers. And as a new owner you can feel so overwhelmed that you quit after being destroyed time and time again.

What if instead each off season there was promotion and relegation based on team rankings? Top two teams in each league get promoted, bottom two teams get relegated. Weight initial league structure based on owner/coach win/loss record?

This allows new owners to get used to everything the game has while competing against similar skill levels, and older owner a competitive jolt.

I saw Sperry the kids post and though instead of just having lower level leagues this would make the game more dynamic but serve a similar purpose.

I love this idea

100%

Geez, that is LITERALLY the idea I suggested over 10 seasons ago and everyone crapped on it. Well, I hope that does happen because it's needed to encourage newcomers and those learning the game.

This needs to be done.

Most modern PvP games are matchmaking environments to find people of similar abilities for a game, whether it's Blood Bowl, Street Fighter or a Chess App on a phone.

GLB2Scout users have access to Power Rankings already, so an algorithm that calculates a team/coaches' ELO or whatever ranking system to set up the initial league structure isn't in the realms of fiction... or reorganise the top 12 Rookie Ladder for 1 league, next 12 for Div 2, and next 12,... you get the idea.

And for pity's sake, give playoff teams a token badge. A plain bronze one would suffice. Reward the reinvigorated user base. I don't give a s*** about the standard of competition in the league, but I do know well that gratifying sense of achievement for a new player who worked their socks off to get the 4th seed only to get blown away by an imbalanced number 1 seed.

Gamers want reward, even lower league "scrubs". Team achievements, no matter how trivial, spur coaches - especially newer ones - for further glory. Who knows, maybe that scrub might steal Gold in Veteran Ladder and League.

Originally posted by Mango Fandango
This needs to be done.

Most modern PvP games are matchmaking environments to find people of similar abilities for a game, whether it's Blood Bowl, Street Fighter or a Chess App on a phone.

GLB2Scout users have access to Power Rankings already, so an algorithm that calculates a team/coaches' ELO or whatever ranking system to set up the initial league structure isn't in the realms of fiction... or reorganise the top 12 Rookie Ladder for 1 league, next 12 for Div 2, and next 12,... you get the idea.

And for pity's sake, give playoff teams a token badge. A plain bronze one would suffice. Reward the reinvigorated user base. I don't give a s*** about the standard of competition in the league, but I do know well that gratifying sense of achievement for a new player who worked their socks off to get the 4th seed only to get blown away by an imbalanced number 1 seed.

Gamers want reward, even lower league "scrubs". Team achievements, no matter how trivial, spur coaches - especially newer ones - for further glory. Who knows, maybe that scrub might steal Gold in Veteran Ladder and League.

Could def give bronze for 3rd, 4th and silver for second

Those posting won't like this, but I hate this idea, and might stop enjoying the game.

I will say the ladder matchups, which are supposed to consistently create games between evenly matched teams, should be improved to fill that goal much better than they do.

But I hated the stretch of the season when I was playing the best teams in the league games back to back. If the best teams were put into one league and the worse in another, then instead of being a good team in a mixed league, I'd be penalized for being good by having to play all the best teams in my league and not make the playoffs, maybe not have a winning record.

Of course starting should be made easier for newbies, and help for weaker coaches/owners to improve, so I very much like the idea in another thread of being able to ask for help and get a one on one chat with an experienced, good owner/coach.

But concentrate on ladder games to get even matchups, and to get them better matched than they are now, and then whoever runs their team better as far as league play should be able to make the playoffs, etc. in league play.

I agree with Nyria. Leagues and Ladder games are different. Ladder games are about moving teams around...leagues should be somewhat static to keep rivals.

Now, the ladder needs to be updated/fixed. The ladder needs to be more than randomly (somewhat) playing teams and then 1 team gets #1 at the end. The ladder needs to be something like this:

- play X amount of games during the season
- for the last 3 or 4 weeks of the season, have mutiliple single elimination tournaments. This will satisfy the "promotion/relegation" crown, as you will be promoting/relegating all through the season with each game. Your final ranking with 4 or 3 weeks left will determine which bracket you are placed in.
- with 4 weeks left in the season, several tournaments are generated (teams ranked 1-16 for 1 tourny; teams 17-32 for a second tourny; etc...)
- have the teams that lose in the early rounds of the tournaments, keep randomly playing each other to finish out the season.
- Give REWARDS...stars....places to go see...hey I won 3rd place back in season 82 in the Gold Tournament!

Originally posted by Nyria
If the best teams were put into one league and the worse in another, then instead of being a good team in a mixed league, I'd be penalized for being good by having to play all the best teams in my league and not make the playoffs, maybe not have a winning record.


I'm based in the UK where team sports have a hierarchy. The best teams float to the top and compete for the biggest honours, there is no greater honour than beating the very best. Sure, it's nice to have a winning record, but in order to win there must be losers. By having a hierarchy, the losing record teams will equilibrate to a league filled with similarly level teams. It's inherent. I could never imagine having a league filled with similar-level coaches as something of a penalty!!! If anything, that's the ultimate aim for healthy competition.

Having a league where a handful of teams beat down the rest in Rookie, in Soph, in Journey, in 4 seasons of Vet... it's no surprise that a large portion of the player base quit.

Ironically, when I first played GLB1, there was a tiered league structure. World League was the pinnacle of the game, which was fed by various international Pro Leagues, which were fed by AAA, AA, A leagues. GLB2 moved away from it to this everyone-hold-hands until-we-hit-veteran-together, which I found very strange.

Originally posted by Cybertron
Ladder games are about moving teams around...leagues should be somewhat static to keep rivals.


It's only a rivalry when both teams are beating each other. One-sided leagues are called monopolies. Not fun. Using soccer as an example, leagues like the French, German and Scottish are derogatorily called, "Farmers Leagues", why? There's 1, maybe 2, predictable winners every season, who have the best squads, stadiums, fanbase, TV revenue, etc. The weak teams are fodder for the 1-2 big fish. And the status quo remains for decades. GLB2 is very much like that.

GLB2 isn't like the NFL if you scratch the surface. The worst teams draft the best talent, usually cut loose the old veterans and so have better cap space to load up on talent (the well run teams, anyway), so there is this sense of any given Sunday.

GLB2 is nothing like that. If you've created a team at rookie, kept the roster the same, took your lumps and got hammered week in week out, you either had to reset if you wanted to fix things, or carry on getting your ass handed on a plate in Soph, Journey, and 4 seasons of Vet. No chance to redraft, no additional cap space. No nothing.

I'm not advocating, nor criticising, the cap or lack of redraft, as they're great barometers of team building, but I am advocating having leagues where Any Given Sunday is the philosophy, not the fantasy.

If you want a rivalry, then there's little option better that a two-up, two-down system system proposed in the OP. Two best of each league face off next season, and likewise for the weaker teams. Alternatively, the 4 playoff teams automatically get promoted and replace the 4 worst records of the higher tier. It's dynamic, it's fluid, it freshens the competition, it retains rivalries where teams are par for the course.

Another option, taking a leaf out of the NFL:

The 14 regular season games can be:

6 vs divisionals (home and away)
2 vs same league's last season's same position in other divisions (so 1st in Alpha plays 1st in Beta and Gamma, etc)
3 vs different league's last season's same position (so Shadow's Alpha 1st plays, for example, Night's Alpha 1st, Beta 1st and Gamma 1st)
3 vs randomly chosen same league opponents from the remainder of opponents (out of 6)

It keeps the league structure intact but introduces cross-conference competition between similarly ranked opponents. This can help weaker/newer coaches match up with other similar-strength opponents and give them a better shot at a playoff berth.

My biggest qualm about this: the weakest playoff seed probably qualified through the weakest imaginable strength of schedule and gets hammered in round 1. But at least they'll have a bronze medal to show for their achievement of making the playoff.... oh wait...

There's always just leaving the leagues alone but fix the ladder. The ladder games are meant to be against teams that have done very similar to how your team has done, so that every team in ladder is supposed to have a decent chance to win every ladder game, so no one is overmatched game after game, Bad teams are meant to play ladder games vs. other bad teams. But the leagues are a meritocracy in terms of record and should stay that way. The ladder algorithm isn't working right, and that's what needs a fix.

Originally posted by Nyria
Those posting won't like this, but I hate this idea, and might stop enjoying the game.

I will say the ladder matchups, which are supposed to consistently create games between evenly matched teams, should be improved to fill that goal much better than they do.

But I hated the stretch of the season when I was playing the best teams in the league games back to back. If the best teams were put into one league and the worse in another, then instead of being a good team in a mixed league, I'd be penalized for being good by having to play all the best teams in my league and not make the playoffs, maybe not have a winning record.

Of course starting should be made easier for newbies, and help for weaker coaches/owners to improve, so I very much like the idea in another thread of being able to ask for help and get a one on one chat with an experienced, good owner/coach.

But concentrate on ladder games to get even matchups, and to get them better matched than they are now, and then whoever runs their team better as far as league play should be able to make the playoffs, etc. in league play.

If you got placed in the tougher league and then struggled hard, you would them go back down to your more similar competition.

You don’t give yourself credit either, if you continue on you will be a very difficult coach quickly.

Originally posted by Nyria
There's always just leaving the leagues alone but fix the ladder. The ladder games are meant to be against teams that have done very similar to how your team has done, so that every team in ladder is supposed to have a decent chance to win every ladder game, so no one is overmatched game after game, Bad teams are meant to play ladder games vs. other bad teams. But the leagues are a meritocracy in terms of record and should stay that way. The ladder algorithm isn't working right, and that's what needs a fix.

Ladder is the only official format where the best coaches can pit their wits from the different leagues. Likewise, it's the only format where the weakest/newest coaches can compete. However, whilst the best teams fight for honours (even a 5th is awarded), the worst is what? Vying not to be 71st from 72 teams? Does that sound like an impetus to play hard?

If you feel you're a middle-of-the-ground coach, who would struggle against the best yet beat down the weaker teams, then you would naturally equilibrate to the middle of the pack where other teams would reside. You will get an Any Given Sunday vibe.

The current league system is unfit for purpose. It's stale. It's lopsided. It's, on the whole, none-competitive. We're capitalists, right? Then let's embrace fair competition.

From personal experience, I've been involved in leagues that were stacked with talented coaches and rosters, and I didn't mind the league being stable. And on other times, I've been in leagues where there are just 2 teams worthy of note with 13 walkover games in the regular season. With just 2 games that weren't meaningless (the regular season head-to-head to determine the top seed, and the rematch in the final).

Guess which league I had fonder memories of?

But each to their own, I guess. Each to their own.

I think Nyria's concern is being stuck in this limbo of being a bit too good for other coaches, but a bit too weak for the elite coaches and ending up in like place 11-12 in an elite league and floundering.

Then, you get relegated, go down to the mid tier, make playoffs and go back up to the elite tier.

I think there are more coaches in that upper tier to where a supposed player like this wouldn't make it to the said elite tier however. But I do think the possibility exists.

I might also argue too though that such a player is only going to continue to improve by playing the best and therefore they might be exactly where they need to be until they take their game to the next level.

In either case I think for the majority of players this system works, the concern would what do you do when you've got especially thin tiers? This idea works fine if you were to use the current Vet class or the current Rookie class. But the current Pro or Soph tiers wouldn't work out at all.

Originally posted by Mango Fandango
Ladder is the only official format where the best coaches can pit their wits from the different leagues. Likewise, it's the only format where the weakest/newest coaches can compete. However, whilst the best teams fight for honours (even a 5th is awarded), the worst is what? Vying not to be 71st from 72 teams? Does that sound like an impetus to play hard?

If you feel you're a middle-of-the-ground coach, who would struggle against the best yet beat down the weaker teams, then you would naturally equilibrate to the middle of the pack where other teams would reside. You will get an Any Given Sunday vibe.

I don't think I'm middle of the road. I'm good. I'll make the playoffs the 2nd time in a row this year. I'll end up playing HayRow's team, and he's definitely the favorite, but I have I'd guess a 20% chance of winning or so. The winner will lose to the Frost Giants, who managed to put together an incredible offense. But in a league of the best teams I wouldn't be in the playoffs. I might have a .500 record.

Originally posted by Mango Fandango
The current league system is unfit for purpose. It's stale. It's lopsided. It's, on the whole, none-competitive. We're capitalists, right? Then let's embrace fair competition.


If we're capitalists, that means the best can achieve all they can and don't have to give up some of their wins so that inferior teams (in talent plus coaching) can have them. Capitalism is, you want to be better than me, then beat me. Don't ask for welfare. HayRow can probably beat me 80% right now. The Frost Giants could 99.9% of the time. A few others in the league are tough competition, and I lost to one this season. And many of the worst teams are welfare cases who don't scout and have a lot of cpu players. Although my views in real life aren't so far right as that, they are in sports. I think college football is way ahead of the NFL because no one enforces parity. If you keep going 2-10, find a way to improve. I will say there aren't enough ways to improve once you have your team, but any means to improve should be offered to all teams, but if you take advantage of them you get better.

Maybe HayRow is right, that my potential is such that I can become someone who'd be a playoff team even among top teams, but if I do that'd mean in a league where all are treated equally, as now, I'd likely be in the championship game (in the tier I'm in I'd still lose to the Frost Giants).

But I was cursing the scheduler when I had a run of the toughest teams outside my division, who mostly hadn't had to play each other yet. I've loved the run of easy teams I had at the end. I care about my record, my players' stats, etc., and I expect the same chance as everyone else, not to be handicapped for doing well.