Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Corndog

But yes, the first season of players will likely be the best in the game until they aren't.

Originally posted by Corndog
I don't know why you STILL don't get it.


What don't I get again?

And in case people are confused: I don't see why the first statement seems to be taken as a foregone conclusion. This was a problem in GLB1 as well that made it pretty disheartening to play a Season 2 dot (although it was worse & more gameplay impactful there due to the way the pyramid system worked).

At least here it's only bragging rights, but it seems kind of silly to have a list of all star players that spans all tiers and then arbitrarily push Season 1 dots to the top of that list because you feel like they are "working harder".

Your solution to the problem is to tell me that because I am a Season 2 dot, I need to play a league above my SP value and then still perform better than every QB at that higher SP value to compete. But a Season 1 dot can play equal competition and have their stats valued highest because they are playing the "toughest challenge".

Originally posted by Laggo
Your solution to the problem is to tell me that because I am a Season 2 dot, I need to play a league above my SP value and then still perform better than every QB at that higher SP value to compete. But a Season 1 dot can play equal competition and have their stats valued highest because they are playing the "toughest challenge".

So, what I gather from this, is you want your player to be at the top of the best players in the game while admitting that your player isn't the best in the game, but rather, the best of his tier.

Thankfully, there is a dropdown to filter players by their tier.

Not sure how you got that evaluation...

If you go by raw stats - then yes, I am the best in the game if you want to take it that far.

The problem is you are valuing the global rank of the opponent too high and not factoring in the difference between ranks of the teams playing / sp value between teams high enough.

The former is inherently biased towards dots who started earlier because the teams in their league are at a higher average, due to the way SP allocation artificially pushes teams up the ladder (even a terrible sophmore team can beat many good to great rookie teams).

If I play 70% of my games versus equal SP opponents around my rank, and 30% of my games versus a higher SP tier that is always higher ranked than my own team than I am actually playing a tougher schedule than a sophmore player playing 100% of their games around their rank.

I'm just saying you need to look at the bigger picture. As a game designer, you should want your all-star list to be a goal for all players to feel like they can achieve - not just for Season 1 or Veteran players to enjoy. Even when we have Veteran players, a Rookie Quarterback who starts putting up arguably best-in-game stats even against players higher than his tier should be rewarded for that kind of play. If you feel like it's too easy to get stats in Rookie, isn't that more of a fault in the game that should be fixed than anything else?

I've said before I disagree with the fact that there is an overall list at all - but it's the default list so that's the only one that will ever get checked/pursued/people care about.

Honestly I think this topic has started to hit a sore spot for you Corndog with the way you've been passive aggressively responding over the last few days, so I doubt you will ever see my argument on this topic. You never address any of the discussion I try to have on this topic reasonably and always resort to trying to attack me or frame my inquiries as "loaded".

I just really want to hear your own reasoning for why you think Season 1 players need such a boost to the value of their performance on the field.

Why do you think valuing global rank of your opponent so highly is beneficial and/or necessary?

Originally posted by Laggo
The problem is you are valuing the global rank of the opponent too high and not factoring in the difference between ranks of the teams playing / sp value between teams high enough.

There is no value for "SP value difference" adjustments.

It's pretty irrelevant when making a list of best players in the game. I'm actually quite flabbergasted that you think it should matter. When making a global ranking of the best players in the game, adjusting it by the global rank of the teams they play against makes the most sense.

I'm actually bordering on thinking you are trolling, but it seems like a LOT of effort for a troll.

Why wouldn't the season 2 dots catch up to season 1 dots after the season 1s retire?

Originally posted by hiimjake
Why wouldn't the season 2 dots catch up to season 1 dots after the season 1s retire?

They won't have to "catch up", after season 1 players retire they won't be on the list because they won't be playing games.

The Hall of Fame isn't an all time thing?

Logically, the best players in the games are the ones with the most SP. This is not really debatable.

As a game designer and from the perspective of designing a list to reward player accomplishments, while the former may be true that doesn't mean I have to make the system painful for players who don't fit that criteria. It also doesn't mean that players who do not have the most SP cannot perform better statistically, or play tougher competition.

You are making the connection between "Allstar List" and "List of Best Players" too literally to the detriment to the fun for a majority of the people using your mechanic. Rather than find the best players, you are simply reinforcing a conclusion.

What is more fun as a new player to GLB2?

"If I wait 5 seasons and develop a good player, I'll have a handful of seasons before I retire to try and make the overall top players list!"

"If I develop a good player and play really well, I'll have a chance to make the overall top players list!"

Originally posted by Laggo
Logically, the best players in the games are the ones with the most SP. This is not really debatable.

As a game designer and from the perspective of designing a list to reward player accomplishments, while the former may be true that doesn't mean I have to make the system painful for players who don't fit that criteria. It also doesn't mean that players who do not have the most SP cannot perform better statistically, or play tougher competition.

You are making the connection between "Allstar List" and "List of Best Players" too literally to the detriment to the fun for a majority of the people using your mechanic. Rather than find the best players, you are simply reinforcing a conclusion.

What is more fun as a new player to GLB2?

"If I wait 5 seasons and develop a good player, I'll have a handful of seasons before I retire to try and make the overall top players list!"

"If I develop a good player and play really well, I'll have a chance to make the overall top players list!"


Man, if only there was a way to see the top rookie players.

Originally posted by hiimjake
The Hall of Fame isn't an all time thing?

Nope, it's a misnomer since the graphics were made before the code was actually written. I'll have to pester the graphics guy to change the image.

Originally posted by Corndog
When making a global ranking of the best players in the game, adjusting it by the global rank of the teams they play against makes the most sense.

Do you disagree that this is inherently biased to teams who get to play teams with a higher global rank more often?

Is a #50 Sophmore Team playing a #80 Sophmore Team a harder game than a #100 Rookie team playing a #90 Sophmore team? If you go strictly by global rank of opponent logic than it is.

Originally posted by Laggo
Do you disagree that this is inherently biased to teams who get to play teams with a higher global rank more often?

Yes.

But when faced with making it more enticing to join the top teams, vs making it more enticing to join low ranked teams, I'm going to lean towards the former pretty much every time.

Originally posted by Laggo
Is a #50 Sophmore Team playing a #80 Sophmore Team a harder game than a #100 Rookie team playing a #90 Sophmore team? If you go strictly by global rank of opponent logic than it is.


Do you think the ranked 100 rookie team's QB would do as well if he were on the rank 50 sophomore team?

Originally posted by Corndog
Man, if only there was a way to see the top rookie players.

If you feature a list of all players as the default option, that is the only one the majority of your players will ever see or care about.

Why do you keep sidestepping the issue with these passive aggressive responses? It's hard to have an honest discussion if you won't even try to engage in some kind of reasonable discourse. Maybe I am wrong and there is no better way to rank all the players in the game fairly, but tell me then what am I not understanding?