Warrior General Games

Originally posted by -Phaytle-
If he opened the thread right when I posted it then he read the whole thing and replied in a minute and half, that's pretty good. Hopefully, with minutes of time he can provide why he disagrees.

I think your fundamental complaint goes to divisional depth disparity. Thats going to be exacerbated by smaller divisions. On the other hand , its clearly the intent of the founders not to have a long playoff and to keep teams interested in the season for as long as possible, while also allowing gameplanning time between league games.

You also have to preserve the 30 game template for XP so that the fix isn't too cumbersome to be developed. Right now we have 14 League games and 16 Ladder , also the intent seems to be to keep teams interested for as long as possible. So that very few teams are "out of it" early on. Right now to some degree the structure suffices and divisional opponents are at least playing the exact same schedule.

I would like to see a check box option on the owner screen though to change divisions within the league. That would allow some cross leveling of talent, to be honest in my league the best four teams were divided two - zero - two across the league. Giving one of them the option to cross level makes sense even if it would make it more challenging for me ... it would spread the talent. Teams would only be able to move if some owner doesn't renew and "new" teams would get stuck in the spot vacated but it would preserve rivalries and alleviate some of the disparity problems.

Originally posted by bhall43
They really aren't more competitive. In fact the biggest whine right now is that divisions are TOO competitive for people and they want easier ones.

I think you're thinking of competition as difficulty. I believe those teams are bitching about their division being more difficult than other divisions in the same league. I'd say competitive is more along the lines of challenging. For example, me playing 1on1 vs a 10 year old would not be competition. He doesn't offer a challenge. Conversely, for him it is not a competition either, he knows is going to get smashed. The 10 year old is not a challenge, therefore not competition to me, and will not become my rival anytime soon until he improves.

It is more competitive because more teams are in the race and closer in records because there aren't outliers getting deflated or inflated by being locked into playing teams much higher or lower in ability than they have to. They have 3 extra games used to more accurately demonstrate their record and position vs the whole league, similar to the ladder.


Originally posted by bhall43
Who gets more of a chance at a playoff spot? Ya that definitely isn't true at all.
Like I said already, removing the inflation/deflation of records due to divisions puts more teams closer together on a more even playing field. As one example, when teams aren't out of the hunt because they are 3rd in their division, like they are in divisions, then they still have a higher than 0% chance without divisions and just taking the top 4.

Originally posted by william78
I think your fundamental complaint goes to divisional depth disparity. Thats going to be exacerbated by smaller divisions. On the other hand , its clearly the intent of the founders not to have a long playoff and to keep teams interested in the season for as long as possible, while also allowing gameplanning time between league games.

You also have to preserve the 30 game template for XP so that the fix isn't too cumbersome to be developed. Right now we have 14 League games and 16 Ladder , also the intent seems to be to keep teams interested for as long as possible. So that very few teams are "out of it" early on. Right now to some degree the structure suffices and divisional opponents are at least playing the exact same schedule.


My proposed solution didn't change any of that, besides solving the exacerbation of division disparity.

Originally posted by -Phaytle-
My proposed solution didn't change any of that, besides solving the exacerbation of division disparity.

You have to consider though having an unbalanced schedule , however well founded is going to lead to endless complaining. I remember the 80 pounds of complaints from GLB1 in having one cross divisional game, 3 even if based on strength is going to lead to holly hell.

Plus they obviously want to keep teams in the race for as long as possible and keep the playoff field small so that not too many teams are idle. I think some method of cross leveling divisions would be helpful and more likely to get done faster.

Originally posted by bhall43
It has nothing to do with being blind. This is infinitely more fun of a structure than GLB1. I am growing tired of the babies needing coddling because they couldn't win the participation award for the playoffs. The best teams win the league. The structure actually creates more rivalry. This structure actually makes an entire season meaningful. Something GLB1 fails at season after season.

But my proposed solution doesn't change any of that. It'd actually less like coddling. If anything would be coddling it would be allowing a team with a worse record in the playoffs over a team with a better record in. Now the team playing that worse team has an even larger chance and easier road to the championship.

Nowhere did I say make it like GLB1. GLB1 has too many playoff teams. And if the best teams win the league what happened in Eagle?

What you want is the teams that are going to provide each other the most competition and make it the hardest to win the championship. Then nobody gets an easier path to the trophy, and this is accomplished by allowing the best 4 teams in the playoffs. I've already described how a 3rd place team in a division can be a better team than a division winner.

Originally posted by william78
You have to consider though having an unbalanced schedule , however well founded is going to lead to endless complaining. I remember the 80 pounds of complaints from GLB1 in having one cross divisional game, 3 even if based on strength is going to lead to holly hell.

Plus they obviously want to keep teams in the race for as long as possible and keep the playoff field small so that not too many teams are idle. I think some method of cross leveling divisions would be helpful and more likely to get done faster.

Where would my solution be unbalanced. It's more balanced than the divisional system.

I understand the creator and players wanting teams to remain in the hunt longer. My proposition satisfies that better than divisions.

Originally posted by -Phaytle-
Where would my solution be unbalanced. It's more balanced than the divisional system.

I understand the creator and players wanting teams to remain in the hunt longer. My proposition satisfies that better than divisions.



People complain about ladder games and getting matched with a guy too many spots away from their team... now when a solution is provided to curb that problem in league play and replace those mismatch games with a closer team instead more people will complain?

Originally posted by -Phaytle-
Where would my solution be unbalanced. It's more balanced than the divisional system.

I understand the creator and players wanting teams to remain in the hunt longer. My proposition satisfies that better than divisions.



Unbalanced from the sense that the opponents played are not identical.

Not necessarily on more teams staying in it longer. Having everyone in a single division greatly helps a strong 3rd team who might be stuck in a division with two powerhouses but would actually hurt teams 5 through say 9. Your way is probably more fair, but right now anyone within 3 games of their division leader is live at week 11.

Your League Rhino is a bad example because the division winners were basically decided before week 11, you have 4 really poor teams, 3 dominating teams , and 3 in the middle of the pack (basically competing for the 1 wild card spot).
Look at Eagle or Gorilla, both of those Leagues had some breakaway teams but also a good many more "middle of the pack" clubs. 3 Weeks out you'd have 5 teams competing for 1 spot since the top 3 records are breakaway records. Also having the head to head division matchup gives a team the chance to "take out" their top rival.

Originally posted by william78
Unbalanced from the sense that the opponents played are not identical.

Not necessarily on more teams staying in it longer. Having everyone in a single division greatly helps a strong 3rd team who might be stuck in a division with two powerhouses but would actually hurt teams 5 through say 9. Your way is probably more fair, but right now anyone within 3 games of their division leader is live at week 11.

Your League Rhino is a bad example because the division winners were basically decided before week 11, you have 4 really poor teams, 3 dominating teams , and 3 in the middle of the pack (basically competing for the 1 wild card spot).
Look at Eagle or Gorilla, both of those Leagues had some breakaway teams but also a good many more "middle of the pack" clubs. 3 Weeks out you'd have 5 teams competing for 1 spot since the top 3 records are breakaway records. Also having the head to head division matchup gives a team the chance to "take out" their top rival.




Right, teams 5 through 9 aren't the best 4 and shouldn't be in the playoffs. That's the problem we have now. Also, with 3 opponents changing each season being based on similar records to better evenly match competition than divisions, I'd expect the top teams to lose more often. Those losses have to count as wins for some other teams. Like I said, it should reduce the severity and/or amount of outliers. Everyone's record should be slightly closer in a smaller range, therefore each game is more important, you can move up or down a little quicker, and each league carries more weight than it does in the division system. Now instead of having to be within 3 games of your division leader at week 11, you only have to be within 3 games at week 11 of the 4th seed. As you can see this brings many more teams into the hunt.

If the top 3 are consistently good in a league each season they'll play each other twice almost every season. That will have to create more losses for them. Then they won't be so far away from the pack, see? Instead of having maybe 3 breakaway teams you might get only one each season, and it could be different from season to season. In a weak division there is no rival. The rival is outside of their division, usually someone close to them that they have exchanged wins and losses with.

Rivalry is still intact by staying in the same league and playing teams close to you in competition twice each season. But what I proposed now has a self-correcting feature of slightly rebalancing if the schedule. If there are two teams that are consistently at the top each season but one drops off the planet, then the other top team will get a new challenger. If there are two teams consistently at the bottom and then one gets a new coordinator or superstars or something and becomes really good, that other bottom team is not subjected to the mismatch twice and si replaced with a more suitable matchup.

I appreciate you taking the time to try and poke holes in the suggestion anywhere you can. Thank you. (to clarify, that wasn't sarcastic)

Originally posted by william78
Unbalanced from the sense that the opponents played are not identical.

Not necessarily on more teams staying in it longer. Having everyone in a single division greatly helps a strong 3rd team who might be stuck in a division with two powerhouses but would actually hurt teams 5 through say 9. Your way is probably more fair, but right now anyone within 3 games of their division leader is live at week 11.

Your League Rhino is a bad example because the division winners were basically decided before week 11, you have 4 really poor teams, 3 dominating teams , and 3 in the middle of the pack (basically competing for the 1 wild card spot).
Look at Eagle or Gorilla, both of those Leagues had some breakaway teams but also a good many more "middle of the pack" clubs. 3 Weeks out you'd have 5 teams competing for 1 spot since the top 3 records are breakaway records. Also having the head to head division matchup gives a team the chance to "take out" their top rival.




And just to add, how is playing 6 easy games if you're in a bad division, or 6 hard games if you're in an easy division more balanced?

If you are stating that using those 3 games to pair up teams with like records unbalanced then the ladder is unbalanced or otherwise not functioning properly, or providing the opposite of its purpose currently.

This solution is increasing competition because it is requiring a higher standard for the playoffs. No longer would 8-6 teams make it to the playoffs. They'd be required to have one of the top 4 records in the league. If you aren't good enough to get in the top, then you aren't good enough to get a playoff spot is much more accurate than if you can't win the hardest division in your league then blah blah blah. The rebuttal that if a team in third place was in a different division they would have won the division and went to the playoffs is completely and absolutely relevant. The fact they were 3rd in a tough division behind two playoff teams and still had a better record than another division winner proves they are a better team. Better teams provide more competition to better teams.

When you have a larger league you can afford to send more teams to the playoffs and have the playoffs sort out the better teams, like the NBA. With a short season and small league the best teams need to be determined the most accurate way possible before the playoffs start. This is more accurate and balances many things like leagues, stats, and to a smaller extent ladder ranking.

I don't really care but the way divisions are handled in this game is pretty luck based / anti-competitive

If you are unlucky enough to get multiple top teams in your tier in different divisions it kills the rest of the league and if you get those teams in the same division (like #1 and #16 for Rookie in Mars) it kills the weaker of the two, even if they are stronger than the rest of the league

if you luck into a shitty division that's 4 to 6 free(r) wins in a 15 game season. That's insane.

At the very least, divisions should be reshuffled from season to season to prevent people perenially being stuck in a shitty situation but ideally every team should just play each other the same # of times and the best records should move on.

Being in the same league was enough to form rivalries in GLB1. I would actually argue divisions do a worse job of that, because there is no incentive to care about the performance of any team not in your division.

This is a problem a lot of major sports are starting to or have recently dealt with though. The NBA being the prime example right now with a craptastic Eastern conference and they are evaluating removing divisions for pretty much all the same reasons.

I agree with bhall43 pretty much. Some leagues will be tougher than others, but thats the whole point of the ladder games. You can see if your team sucks in the league but is good in ladder games...it means you have a tougher division...so you can see your guy going against weaker competition in the ladder games to get more "fair" results if thats what you want. Or even just do practice games which is even more random and weak competition. I think the way it is now with the ladder games is already a good way around it if you happen to be in a tough division. I think its fine. Divisions ARE good for rivalries as well as other things, so I would not get rid of divisions...at all...ever.

They are part of the NFL as well, always have been and probably always will be.

The League set up is my favourite addition in GLB2.

doobas™

Divisions are great!