Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Galithor
I wonder if a rookie team running GL HB strong sweep and QB rollout against CPU defense using the terrible goalline defenses could still score at will.

Prolly not. My rookie team is built for that, and I'm pretty sure enough blockers would get run over that the QB/HB would never be able to get outside and turn the corner.

Hell, it's dodgy enough against rookie teams where one missed block blows up the play in the backfield.

Originally posted by Laggo
The problem is everybody starts at the same level and they expect it to just "sort it out" but GLB is not a pure skill game (as in both players are on an equal playing field) each match. So your rating is artificially influenced by luck of the draw, to what degree nobody knows.

Zorp had a good run beating up rookie teams on our level, and now we get punished by playing 80% of our ladder games a tier up the next season. Even if we lose most of them (which we have), there are so many mediocre teams a tier up around our ELO it will likely continue for the whole season.


These two paragraphs really had nothing to do with each other.

Also I'm pretty sure Zorp has a winning record vs Sophomores in ladder games overall. We just suck this season
Last season Zorp was probably legit a top 75 team in the game. This season not so much, but it takes ladder games to push that back down. There's not enough interplay between the age groups to really sort it out in a single season, and the relative value of the age groups changes each season, so it's not really going to work well this way.

Starting teams correctly would help a lot. Being consistent would help too - "something" happened to teams at the start of S2 that didn't happen at the start of S3. That's wonky. But they're being very tight-lipped about the ranking process, which is weird. I understand keeping sim details under wraps (although I don't necessarily agree), but the ranking process, there's no reason for that not to be completely transparent.

My question is, if teams never played outside of their age ladder, ever, what would be the problem with merging them with the Vet teams when they get to the top of the ladder?

If all of the teams in S1 started with the same ELO and all of the teams in S2 started with the same ELO, would you not be able to just slot the teams in based on their current ELO after 4-5 seasons when they get to plateau?

...

On a whole other issue, this business of some teams playing up the ladder by 30 points and other teams playing down the ladder by a single point would be fixed if they just rolled a number between 1 and 10 and applied that to the matchup starting with the top and working down.

Originally posted by Time Trial
My question is, if teams never played outside of their age ladder, ever, what would be the problem with merging them with the Vet teams when they get to the top of the ladder?

If all of the teams in S1 started with the same ELO and all of the teams in S2 started with the same ELO, would you not be able to just slot the teams in based on their current ELO after 4-5 seasons when they get to plateau?

...

On a whole other issue, this business of some teams playing up the ladder by 30 points and other teams playing down the ladder by a single point would be fixed if they just rolled a number between 1 and 10 and applied that to the matchup starting with the top and working down.

Run separate ladders until everyone gets to the same point level?

The problem you run into there is that you can't really ever merge them in a way that makes sense.

Think of it like this. Let's say in Ladder 1, you have 2 superstud teams, and a bunch of scrubs. Then in Ladder 2, you have a dozen teams every bit as good as those 2 superstuds, but because there's more of them, the ELO of 2 is spread out. Then you merge them. The Lader 1 superstuds by virtue of having been able to collect a lot more ELO get ranked higher than the Ladder 2. If things play out as you'd expect, you now have 14 good teams each winning and losing to each other, but beating everyone else. But those two Ladder 1 teams will always be ranked higher because they started with a head start even if they're not actually the two very best teams.

So either you keep the ladders completely separate for all time, or you let them work into each other early enough that no team or teams can build up an artificially high ELO score before being made to play competition that should be at their level.

What you don't do is doom the new teams into guaranteed losses by making them play opponents that they have almost no chance to beat.

I find it highly unlikely that a team would run away with the ELO in one age group much more than any other age groups. The 2-team group can only grab points from the underdogs two games a week, then trade back and forth in their ladder game. The 14-team group gets to grab points from the underdogs fourteen games a week, then trade those points back and forth in the ladder. I don't think the discrepancy at the top would be that different.

There are a lot of ways to treat this. The biggest problem is we have no idea what they're doing, *AND* Bort has shown a great propensity for forgetting to run various offseason scripts each offseason, and we can't doublecheck him because it's all hidden.

I am 90% sure that in S2, all Sophomores got a flat one-time ratings boost. I am also about 90% sure that no such boost was given at the start of S3 to the Seasoned teams, or to the Sophomore teams this time around. So S1 teams (probably) have an artificial ratings boost over the field. But I can't doublecheck that Bort forgot to run this script, because 1) We can't see the ratings and 2) They won't tell us what they did.

Starting all new teams at the same value, and that value being less than any existing team's rating, is the #1 leading cause of bad ladder matchups and it's not even close - it's an order of magnitude ahead of any of the other effects.

Originally posted by NiborRis
I find it highly unlikely that a team would run away with the ELO

do u not remember S1 DD

I just got stuck playing a ladder game against a 7-5-1 Sophomore team....so I guess I just have to get my salad tossed and like it???


http://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/compare_teams/655/737

Probably another sophomore team that is new this season so you guys started at the same spot on the ladder. Just bad luck for you. Who doesn't like getting their salad tossed though?

See I think you should only be able to buy rookie teams, let ayone that wants to buy a second team buy a sophomore team.

Originally posted by Narasimha
See I think you should only be able to buy rookie teams, let ayone that wants to buy a second team buy a sophomore team.

+1

Rookie teams should only play rookies team. Sophomore teams should only play sophomore teams. Seasoned teams should only played seasoned teams. Etc.

Originally posted by CKeppelrun
Rookie teams should only play rookies team. Sophomore teams should only play sophomore teams. Seasoned teams should only played seasoned teams. Etc.

I disagree. Many teams have shown that you can beat a team one level higher, or lose to a team one level lower.

Playing teams two levels ahead of your own team is not the problem, it's a symptom of a larger problem, which is teams being initially seeded improperly within the ELO system.

Well...almost pulled off the rookie vs. seasoned team win.

http://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/game/47407

But yeah, count me in with the people who believe this needs to be fixed.

http://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/game/46376

Rookie beats seasoned

Originally posted by redbox13
http://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/game/46376

Rookie beats seasoned

The 7-7 seasoned team that I coach beat them 119-14. A lot of their players are sophomores and CPU. They don't even have the roster to fill out a whole offense, so likely have defensive guys and running backs playing offensive line. Not a good example.



You have tiers for a reason, rookies should only play other rookies. Sophomores should only play other sophomores. It doesn't make much sense to have it programmed any other way - or there should at least be an option. I won't be too thrilled when my rookie team gets matched up with a sophomore or seasoned team.