Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Corndog
Mostly what I see is people losing winnable games, then blaming the system for being unfair.

I'll readily admit that early season ladder games can be pretty bonkers, but that was a side effect of the seasonal reset that many customers requested. I do agree that in an ideal world, every match in a competitive game would be completely fair and balanced and a hard fought victory for both sides, it's not a very practical goal.

The alternative I guess would be playing the same five teams five times a season, but people also weren't happy when that was happening.


Hiding from the fact that the current system is unfair does not make an average coach a bad one. I'll repeat that, the system is currently unfair. If you can program a game world, it best be as ideal as possible if you want to keep your customers. Keep all games from same tier teams if you don't want to bring lower tier teams, but bringing in higher tier teams is not good for game integrity. Bring in D league teams if needed for extra feeder teams.

If it is a fair match up and people still lose, you know there is room for improvement. If your team hits a brick wall, you don't know how to fix it overnight.

Originally posted by Coach Alan

Hiding from the fact that the current system is unfair does not make an average coach a bad one. I'll repeat that, the system is currently unfair. If you can program a game world, it best be as ideal as possible if you want to keep your customers. Keep all games from same tier teams if you don't want to bring lower tier teams, but bringing in higher tier teams is not good for game integrity. Bring in D league teams if needed for extra feeder teams.

If it is a fair match up and people still lose, you know there is room for improvement. If your team hits a brick wall, you don't know how to fix it overnight.

That defeats the purpose of a ladder game, to play someone not included in the ladder. What will it do to your rankings? If it effects it at all that's not fair to the others on the ladder who have to play real opponents - how much does that game weigh into the ladder rank? You gotta play someone on the ladder, and it sometimes matches up the worst CPU teams on the bottom of one tier to the absolute best of a tier lower, problem is sometimes the ladder rankings in the beginning are a bit wonky and you end up facing a good team or decent team from a tier up right off the bat. no bueno.

As I said, maybe we could use the rankings of last year to determine at least those cross-match games first to even out teams in their respective tiers then match them up randomly within their tier after that. At least then you'd only be facing off against a team you could realistically beat, even if it would still be hard.

a Bye system would be too hard to work out, as the league sizes change every season, and not many other good options exist besides outright eliminating the ladder aspect of the games and having cross-league games occupy their spot - then use the results from those cross league games and your non-conference games in your own league to feed a ladder ranking.

Why can we not set a restriction to only play your tier and 1 tier up or down?

And Corndog, you said you see people complaining about losing winnable games?

http://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/game/426621

http://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/game/424784

Should I keep going? There's plenty more of these, between WWMI and other teams.

Originally posted by JokersChaos
Why can we not set a restriction to only play your tier and 1 tier up or down?

And Corndog, you said you see people complaining about losing winnable games?

http://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/game/426621

http://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/game/424784

Should I keep going? There's plenty more of these, between WWMI and other teams.


Whoa. My condolences. Those games are surreal. No owner should have to deal with those kind of results.

The answer is more teams.

Originally posted by AirMcMVP
The answer is more teams.

Let me know if I'm understanding this correctly.
Your answer for a resolution is..... something we don't have?

Here Agents of GLB2, we see the issue at hand. But instead of resolving it, we feel you all need to give us more money so you can solve it yourself. Don't worry about the $100's already spent, just think about how much less work we have to do to update game to its customers. With more of your hard earned money issues will solve themselves.



.... did I understand you correctly?

Originally posted by JokersChaos
Let me know if I'm understanding this correctly.
Your answer for a resolution is..... something we don't have?

Yeah, pretty much. If you have three red marbles, two blue marbles, and a white marble...it is impossible to split them into equal groups.

Matchmaking, in general, is a function of granularity. The larger the selection the better the match will tend to be. The smaller the selection, the less likely the match will be entirely even. If there's only three or four teams that you can realistically have competitive games against, you either have to play those three or four teams over and over, or deal with games that aren't entirely even.

Sometimes you just need more marbles.

Originally posted by Corndog

Sometimes you just need more marbles.

Seems to me like you have the ability to make more marbles. What if there were enough cpu teams to prevent teams from having to make that 2 tier jump vs a human team. Make the cpu teams slightly better by running the top (x) plays from the season before determined by the human population. Games vs cpu teams even up a tier will be better tests for newer players but will still be winnable with proper gameplanning. This would also have the effect of making the most common plays more obsolete over time, or exposing the most op plays. There is a solution to this problem.

Originally posted by JokersChaos
Let me know if I'm understanding this correctly.
Your answer for a resolution is..... something we don't have?

Here Agents of GLB2, we see the issue at hand. But instead of resolving it, we feel you all need to give us more money so you can solve it yourself. Don't worry about the $100's already spent, just think about how much less work we have to do to update game to its customers. With more of your hard earned money issues will solve themselves.



.... did I understand you correctly?

First, I can't do anything to resolve the issue. As a Mod, all I am is a player of the game who can do a little more in the forums. I'm as blind to the codebase as any other average player.

As for the issue of "more teams", its probably more appropriately an issue of larger base of agents but those two will go hand-in-hand. More agents would lead to more players which would (hopefully) lead to more teams. More teams would equate to more "marbles" (as CDog put it) which would naturally fix the flaw. Now, could they find a code fix? Possibly. The problem is that the code fix would fix "today's" problems but would lead to other problems down the line. Examples include: extending elo protection to sophomore, preventing teams from playing more than once (fixed to allow repeat matchups during playoffs), and seasonal elo reset. Each of those fixes were requested by the community and have led to some of the issues we see today. The root problem, however, was not enough teams in a particular tier.

Originally posted by False6
Seems to me like you have the ability to make more marbles. What if there were enough cpu teams to prevent teams from having to make that 2 tier jump vs a human team. Make the cpu teams slightly better by running the top (x) plays from the season before determined by the human population. Games vs cpu teams even up a tier will be better tests for newer players but will still be winnable with proper gameplanning. This would also have the effect of making the most common plays more obsolete over time, or exposing the most op plays. There is a solution to this problem.


Would those CPU teams be in a "protected" league that couldn't be purchased by humans? If not, there could be issues. Also, how do you want the devs to react to complaints that they're losing to CPU teams that are spamming OP plays? Its only a matter of time before that happens if this suggestion is implemented.

In my opinion this is a design/marketing flaw. The design of the game (specific to ladder) requires "enough" teams but the design (specific to gameplay) and marketing prevents those new teams from coming on board and (more importantly) staying.

Ummmm....easy way to make the situation better. Reduce the number of tiers and set a 1 tier limit of who you can play. The main problem is that teams playing up a tier and especially 2 tiers are at a huge disadvantage due to less SPs and SAs. This is the problem. It is UNFAIR. Much less complaints would come if teams could play a more evenly matched team in ladder. Evenly matches = same or similar level. If you lose to a team that is even level or slightly higher, that is on the owner. If you lose to a team 2 tiers above you, that is on the implementation of the ladder.

Combining 2 lower tiers.

Fresh/Soph = 1 tier (they only play each other)
Seasoned/Journy/Pro/Vet = play each other but only within 1 tier

Originally posted by Galactic Empire
Ummmm....easy way to make the situation better. Reduce the number of tiers and set a 1 tier limit of who you can play. The main problem is that teams playing up a tier and especially 2 tiers are at a huge disadvantage due to less SPs and SAs. This is the problem. It is UNFAIR. Much less complaints would come if teams could play a more evenly matched team in ladder. Evenly matches = same or similar level. If you lose to a team that is even level or slightly higher, that is on the owner. If you lose to a team 2 tiers above you, that is on the implementation of the ladder.

Combining 2 lower tiers.

Fresh/Soph = 1 tier (they only play each other)
Seasoned/Journy/Pro/Vet = play each other but only within 1 tier

If you're limiting matchups to a 1 tier limit then you're artificially affecting elo...especially with all the other artificial rules. The fix is to add more marbles. Removing marbles will only make the problem worse.

What is better for the game....effecting elo or running off marbles because they are sick of losing by 100 points to teams with twice as many SPs?

In all honesty, there are too few teams in EVERY tier. We have two veteran leagues and both have CPU teams. Pro has the same problem. There is one Journeyman league and it has a CPU team. If you place the 1 tier limitations there will be drastic impacts since Journeyman has to play out of tier every single week.

This is a lose-lose situation for both the devs and player base.

Which is why they should combine 2 tiers.

Originally posted by Galactic Empire
Which is why they should combine 2 tiers.

Which two? Pro and Vet? Journey and Pro? Seasoned and Journey? Rookie and Soph?

I have some ideas. I'll type them up.