Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Galactic Empire
I've never understood why people are against playing teams multiple times in the ladder. I would much rather have a #1 and #3 ranked team in the same tier play 3 times then have them play 1 time and then the other 2 times play teams 2 tiers higher and get destroyed.

I have always thought...and I've said this many times...ladder games should be played only in your same tier so you can find the true champion of the tier. This cross tier ranking/ladder is BS. Why the hell should I have to play a team that has thousands of more SPs than me? How is that fair? It is boring and stupid.

Maybe combine Vet and Pro since they are very similar in SPs, but leave Rookie - Journeyman as only playing inside the tier ladder games.

I agree completely

doobas™

Originally posted by doobas
New teams don't fold because in 4 seasons they might not be able to afford career boosts. They fold because they get destroyed.

The learning curve for new owners is too hard.

doobas™



There is a large learning curve as this is a Coordinator game much more than a Player or even Owner game.

The biggest problem with Rookie is that it's not like Vet. Cover 3 Tiger/ZEB/etc spam rules Rookie. It doesn't at Vet. The teams that succeed at Rookie know which O and D to run.

Losing is one thing. Lopsided games are another. If you don't know what you are doing in Rookie, you can have games with less than 100 yards of Offense. Who wants to pay $ and watch their QB/HB get sacked or TFL'd 20 times a game???

Rookie is lopsided because of play calling. The higher tiers are lopsided because of builds.

People will re-build. That's character progression and it's existed for many many successful games. What turns people off is Cover 3 Tiger spam where you can't run outside, inside or Pass (with the exception of a few plays that "work" against it).

No new player recognizes that as fun.

I think its too late to change the Ladder coding, we basically just need more teams. Adding in the computer teams would help, but honestly computer teams would need to be revamped from everything to better cpu player builds and play calling.

I still feel that Rookie should just be done away with and let teams start out at Sophomore. They can still get their protection from going the Global ladder and we can start with better built teams that do without the randomness from Rookie. It makes strategy more of a thing.

I also would like to see players, AP Boosts, and Career Boots all made cheaper to allow me to afford 4 seasons at Vet. Cheaper players mean more players for teams to choose from and skipping Rookie would speed up getting to Vet as well.

Vet is where this game shines.

I like some of the thoughts in here, even though this isn't really a topic that I'm too terribly concerned about personally. I think currently, ladder is designed to find out where you stand vs. the collective pool of teams, not just how you're doing in the tier. That's a problem when your thought process is based off the latter. Say you're a successful team, plowing through every team in your tier, and you hit 40 in the ladder, while only playing in tier. Who's to say you're not better than the 39th team, who's a tier higher. Why couldn't you be better than 5 higher teams? 10? Yeah it sucks getting the draw vs. the top team in the next tier up before playing any other teams first. But that I think is more related to a different problem (I think the main culprit, the lack of teams.)

I find a problem with OP's idea. I currently run a pro team, and there are 10 owners (two of which may as well be CPU). So if five of the total teams opted in to the in tier ladder, and five opted to the global, well, those five are going to play each other all the time (four times via ladder and one or two in league play, depending on divisions.) I have a much bigger problem with that than I do playing other tiers, even if due to probability you get bad draws.

I think the approach would be more successful if it was handled the way Doobas/GE/Xars mentioned. I don't believe this is an offseason fix, it will take time. By making certain parts of the game cheaper (whether it means making it more expensive in other places or not is a different discussion) so that we have more teams, we'll have more capable tiers and THEN we can have more fair games.

I think Txsteve may mentioned it before, as well as the other three guys that I've named, but consolidating rookie tier may be a good way to help alleviate the problem as well. Starting the rookies with the equivalent SP of the now-sophomore tier, and you have one less season to worry about. Less teams will quit after the first season due to dots playing like they were mentally incapable, and there's one less offseason where an owner will mull over the future of his team, weighing out whether it's worth it to keep working towards vet. Rookie is the least like any other tier, almost like playing a different game. Get rid of it (maybe tack on the lost profit made on that to sp boosts, or owning a team, or my personal favorite, not increasing it at all.)


Maybe we as a community could use a little adjustment in thinking too. I understand there's a dislike for playing at a disadvantage against more matured teams, but it's not like they, as a whole, are an insurmountable obstacle. We were able to defeat four higher tiered teams while residing in the seasoned tier, and we beat six as a journeyman team. I don't want to come across with my nose stuck in the air or anything, but if people build awesome dots and coaches do a great job, then there's still a decent chance of winning. And it feels oh so good when you do.

TL;DR - Cheaper costs/removing rookie = good. Limiting ladder to same tier matchups = bad.

Well said GG!

If costs were half what they are now I would definitely have 1 more team possibly 2.