Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Ace of Spades 7
Right now when we move to next season we'll still be facing BSB, NW Mix, etc. and we'll still get pounded and this will happen season after season because we signed up at the same time. Luck of the draw.

Look at the Firecracker league where there are only 3 human teams.

Wouldn't it be better if BSB and NW Mix could move up throughout the season and play in higher divisions against Sophomore and, possibly, Journeyman teams who are at their level?

Wouldn't it be better if the three teams in the Firecracker League got to be in a division where they could play against higher and lower Tier human teams and make their season more interesting?

We had great scrimmages against a number of lower ranked Soph teams that were a lot more fun and competitive than the blow-outs we endured because we're unlucky enough to be in a Tier with some other very good teams.

Wouldn't it be better if, instead of just scrimmaging against those Soph teams, we were all in the same division because we're the same skill level and have great, competitive games and playoffs?

I'm just asking.

You're arguing with the wrong person here. I don't think competitive matchups in a competitive game are a punishment.

It's been made abundantly clear that people would rather go 30-0 with an average win margin of 80 points than going 20-10 with an average margin of 20 against better opponents.

Better to be the JV superstar than play on the varsity team, I guess.

Originally posted by Ace of Spades 7
But, Tier level doesn't determine skill level of a team. We're Rookie but have beaten 4 Sophomore teams in scrimmages.

If given a chance the top teams in Rookie (not us) would be highly competitive if they were to move up a division or two. If they're not and they lose then they just get moved back down a division.

With divisional realignment during the season we allow teams to find their own high water mark.

Let's break away from the current, rigid Tier system where, if you're Rookie, you can only compete against Rookie teams. Because, let's face it, a number of Rookie teams can compete at the Sophomore level so why limit them?

Sorry, but even the best Rookie teams would be manhandled by average Sophomore teams. The teams you guys beat were bottom feeder in Soph, with mostly inactive coaches and/or depleted rosters. The SP gap is just too vast. At best...it becomes less of a factor in the Pro tier, since most SP is already used. But still a headache for teams in those tiers when they have to punch up for ladder games.

For BSB & NW, they wouldn't be able to have the reward of winning their tier.....instead they would have to watch their teams get blown out. That would get old real fast.

Originally posted by Corndog
It's been made abundantly clear that people would rather go 30-0 with an average win margin of 80 points than going 20-10 with an average margin of 20 against better opponents.

Wow, that's sad if that's the case. I guess I'm in the minority so I won't push the case for competitive balance any more.

Originally posted by Ace of Spades 7
Wow, that's sad if that's the case. I guess I'm in the minority so I won't push the case for competitive balance any more.

Putting BSB and NW against Sophomore teams isn't competitive balance. There's a massive skills gap

Originally posted by BoDiddley
Putting BSB and NW against Sophomore teams isn't competitive balance. There's a massive skills gap

NW is beating teams in their own tier by 50-60, you're not going to convince me that they would lose to the bottom half of Sophomore teams by that same margin.

Originally posted by Corndog
NW is beating teams in their own tier by 50-60, you're not going to convince me that they would lose to the bottom half of Sophomore teams by that same margin.

Not sure what you're arguing. NW has 5 losses in its own tier, and almost missed the playoffs. The Ghost league they are in was highly competitive, they weren't just running over everybody. They lost their last ladder game and how many 50-60 wins do they have? Most were by a Td or two. I'm sure they could beat a 3-26 Soph team like Hamiltion, but there's maybe 4 teams like that, the others would blow NW out. Nevermind how easy it make it for Sophomore teams above them.

What's the up side?

Originally posted by BoDiddley
Not sure what you're arguing. NW has 5 losses in its own tier, and almost missed the playoffs. The Ghost league they are in was highly competitive, they weren't just running over everybody. They lost their last ladder game and how many 50-60 wins do they have? Most were by a Td or two. I'm sure they could beat a 3-26 Soph team like Hamiltion, but there's maybe 4 teams like that, the others would blow NW out. Nevermind how easy it make it for Sophomore teams above them.

What's the up side?

There's a difference between winning and losing by 60. Games can be competitive even if you lose.

Losing a game by 30 is still more competitive than winning by 60.

Originally posted by Corndog
There's a difference between winning and losing by 60. Games can be competitive even if you lose.

Losing a game by 30 is still more competitive than winning by 60.

Corn I'm still not sure what you're arguing. NW wasn't blowing out teams by 60, they has one win by that margin. Their scores in the playoffs were 12-7 and 20-7. Put them in the Oak league and they're only beating Townsville who's 0-29.

Originally posted by BoDiddley
Corn I'm still not sure what you're arguing. NW wasn't blowing out teams by 60, they has one win by that margin. Their scores in the playoffs were 12-7 and 20-7. Put them in the Oak league and they're only beating Townsville who's 0-29.

Except they would still being playing against the teams that they beat by 12-7 and 20-7. Literally nobody is arguing that the top Rookie teams should only play against the top Sophomore teams. And again, the whole argument that they only beat the 0-29 team is myopic. Who they can easily beat doesn't translate to competitiveness.

I don't think anyone will disagree that a top Rookie team will have a closer game against an 0-29 Sophomore team than a 0-29 Rookie team. You are arguing that they should just get to beat up on the 0-29 Rookie team because it's "fair". I'm arguing that they should play against the 0-29 Sophomore team because it's more competitive. Competitive matchmaking should take precedence in a competitive game.

The fact that the top Rookie team might lose to a 6-23 Sophomore doesn't change that rule. The game will still likely be closer than against the 6-23 Rookie team. Playing up is often more competitive than playing the bottom of your current tier. Sometimes you'll lose a lot by playing up, but a lot of times you'll win by a lot playing the bottom of your tier.

But hey, fairness. I also think weight classes in sports are dumb. They're a tacit admission that lower weight class boxers are worse than bigger boxers. How can you be a "champion" when you never compete against people bigger than you? Yay, you scored the most points on the JV team.

Originally posted by Corndog
Except they would still being playing against the teams that they beat by 12-7 and 20-7. Literally nobody is arguing that the top Rookie teams should only play against the top Sophomore teams. And again, the whole argument that they only beat the 0-29 team is myopic. Who they can easily beat doesn't translate to competitiveness.

I don't think anyone will disagree that a top Rookie team will have a closer game against an 0-29 Sophomore team than a 0-29 Rookie team. You are arguing that they should just get to beat up on the 0-29 Rookie team because it's "fair". I'm arguing that they should play against the 0-29 Sophomore team because it's more competitive. Competitive matchmaking should take precedence in a competitive game.

The fact that the top Rookie team might lose to a 6-23 Sophomore doesn't change that rule. The game will still likely be closer than against the 6-23 Rookie team. Playing up is often more competitive than playing the bottom of your current tier. Sometimes you'll lose a lot by playing up, but a lot of times you'll win by a lot playing the bottom of your tier.

But hey, fairness. I also think weight classes in sports are dumb. They're a tacit admission that lower weight class boxers are worse than bigger boxers. How can you be a "champion" when you never compete against people bigger than you? Yay, you scored the most points on the JV team.
I'm arguing for the tiers you set up Corn. You keep saying "JV team"...I didn't make the tiers, you did. Like I don't know why you're being dismissive and trying to say people don't want to be competitive for sticking to the tiers you created.

But I've said enough on this topic because it's going no where.

More specifically, though, league play is supposed to be the "fair" play against your peers. Ladder play is supposed to be seeing where you measure up across the game. You're not supposed to win every ladder game if you're the toughest featherweight.

Originally posted by BoDiddley

I'm arguing for the tiers you set up Corn. You keep saying "JV team"...I didn't make the tiers, you did. Like I don't know why you're being dismissive and trying to say people don't want to be competitive for sticking to the tiers you created.

But I've said enough on this topic because it's going no where

The tiers I created played amongst each other. It's users that decided that they shouldn't because "they're bigger than me".

But you're right, it is going nowhere. Every season or so the same argument comes up, and it always goes nowhere. I fundamentally disagree with the idea that teams should never play up or down a tier.

A simple solution to all these issues is use the original peewee system just at level 25.

FWIW I like the way the ladder confines you to your tier early when the SP discrepancy is at its largest, then eases you on during later tiers. It lets you know where you need to spend to compete with better, albeit with more SPs, teams.

Originally posted by Corndog
League sizes generally need to shrink with a shrinking userbase

I still think this is the way to make ladder more relevant again. But it's definitely a be careful what you wish for type of suggestion. I think a league shrink with an end of year ladder tournament would be cool to see. And if you want to keep the importance of the ladder's ELO, then its just two matchups, 1v4 2v3 to start, then winners play and losers play - the ultimate winner may not win #1 for tier, but at least they get a shot at getting as much ELO as possible.

I would like the ideal of no ladder for Vet. Just one tier with 24 teams (CPU teams being filler if necessary) and extended playoffs. Ladder rank would still go by wins and such, with the championship winnner being top ladder?