Warrior General Games

People want it to be a 2 step process


A: Division winner is awarded

B: 2 non-division winners are examined (by the rules of whatever) and 1 of them is chosen as wild card (by the computer program)

Originally posted by TxSteve
People want it to be a 2 step process


A: Division winner is awarded

B: 2 non-division winners are examined (by the rules of whatever) and 1 of them is chosen as wild card (by the computer program)

But the only difference is, is that a team ranked lower in the league might win out over a team that did better than them.

And I'm not convinced that is a positive.

Sorry - we are talking about a 3 way tie involving teams from 2 different divisions

Originally posted by TxSteve
Sorry - we are talking about a 3 way tie involving teams from 2 different divisions


Yep.

Ah - well I'm already in over my head

I didn't learn as much about it as the guys who felt they got screwed last season. To make it even more fun the team (D'Haran) that got into the playoffs -- and some people thought they shouldn't -- went on to win the trophy.

I'm sure you're aware of it but that is the long thread about it - http://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/forum/thread/5173474?page=2



as a side note - I know you aren't a people person - but just posting what you posted here...in that thread (Bort says it is viewed as a 3 way tie and that's how he wants it) could have saved a lot of bitching and moaning.


If you'd ever like a forum assistant - I'd like to apply for the position

Since my server is exhausted from running sims, I'll go ahead and finish this discussion up so I can get some sleep before the meeting in like 4 hours.

Division winners looks at everyone in the division, then selects the winner. Wild card looks at everyone in the league, then picks the highest team that didn't win their division.

It does not arbitrarily remove teams from the league rankings. The only thing that would accomplish is, in rare instances, one team would win a tie breaker with a smaller scope than they would in a larger scope. I don't see the benefit of narrowing the scope, besides to make one team feel better and for the better wild card choice to miss the playoffs. I'm just not convinced changing it is for the better.

Originally posted by bhall43
Is there like a way you can make a whole secondary of players with 100 in every category and show us what their coverage looks like in a game?


bhal; the genius

Great when you come back make a video of a team with all 100's in their skills so we can see what they look like in coverage.

Or really how they look doing everything.

Originally posted by TxSteve
Ah - well I'm already in over my head

I didn't learn as much about it as the guys who felt they got screwed last season. To make it even more fun the team (D'Haran) that got into the playoffs -- and some people thought they shouldn't -- went on to win the trophy.

I'm sure you're aware of it but that is the long thread about it - http://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/forum/thread/5173474?page=2



as a side note - I know you aren't a people person - but just posting what you posted here...in that thread (Bort says it is viewed as a 3 way tie and that's how he wants it) could have saved a lot of bitching and moaning.


If you'd ever like a forum assistant - I'd like to apply for the position

already posted that...maybe stop making BS posts and read the content beore you post

haha, don't take the fact that corndog thinks you're a troll out on me!

Originally posted by TxSteve
haha, don't take the fact that corndog thinks you're a troll out on me!

lol

Originally posted by TxSteve
haha, don't take the fact that corndog thinks you're a troll out on me!

I couldnt care less wat he thinks. Its about jackarses like you who demand bans, even tho they dont even realize that they fckin spam in every single thread, in every single forum the same old shit

Originally posted by Corndog
It does not arbitrarily remove teams from the league rankings. The only thing that would accomplish is, in rare instances, one team would win a tie breaker with a smaller scope than they would in a larger scope. I don't see the benefit of narrowing the scope, besides to make one team feel better and for the better wild card choice to miss the playoffs. I'm just not convinced changing it is for the better.

Agree to disagree, I guess. Its good to hear the logic behind the decision.

Originally posted by peeti
already posted that...maybe stop making BS posts and read the content beore you post

Originally posted by TxSteve
haha, don't take the fact that corndog thinks you're a troll out on me!

Originally posted by peeti
I couldnt care less wat he thinks. Its about jackarses like you who demand bans, even tho they dont even realize that they fckin spam in every single thread, in every single forum the same old shit

Take it to PMs or, worst case, use the Ignore function to keep stuff like this from flaring up in the future.

Originally posted by Corndog
You are aware that I can work on something without patting you on the head first?

This is what angers people, we aren't looking for pats on the head or ego stroking like you alluded to in the past. We just want some kind of acknowledgement that it is in fact actually a bug and that it's being worked on.

For example:

I missed a shot at a game tying FG last season and posted about it in the Bugs forum, never a response from you or Bort. The first ladder game of the season, I again miss an attempt at a game tying FG and punt instead with a timeout left. Why should we trust that you went straight to work on something when things go multiple seasons without getting addressed?

Originally posted by peeti
I couldnt care less wat he thinks. Its about jackarses like you who demand bans, even tho they dont even realize that they fckin spam in every single thread, in every single forum the same old shit


Ah.

Peeti, I genuinely apologize. I tossed that out there as a joking comment and honestly didn't even mean it in the smallest way. I've always thought you were a pretty funny guy.

I'm sorry. I meant it as a joke. I wouldn't have done it if I thought it would be taken seriously by you.