Warrior General Games

The only way to increase quality of play, is to be more selective in which teams advance in to silver, which can not be done using the current system.

The current system was established under the impression that all people would keep their team forever, since we all know that is out the window, its time to reduce the number of silver teams and start making a selective promotion process for silver->copper similar to that of the silver->gold.

Originally posted by Time Trial
Originally posted by middawg

TT - we will have to agree to disagree, my background is such that "random" can never be the most desirable solution to any problem.

I agree with you that it is not ideal.

But I will put 10:1 on $100.00 that Bort will NEVER include anything in his promotion system that cannot be automated using existing data.

That makes a lot of really good ideas NGTH.



+1 - An additional argument in favor of my Most Franchise Wins proposal is it gives the advantage to teams, (customers), that continue to use flex to support their advancement as a slight reward.

It gives an advantage to people who have had teams for longer, therefore its an elitist principal that should not be applied to the game.

Or it should.

But most wins isn't a good idea either because it rewards teams that have been in easier conferences.

How do you determine a 'franchise'? That's too subjective. If I get buy a copper team and get something like NOPW, does that count as my franchise?

What if I suck for a couple of seasons, then get a new coach and have dominated for the last 3?

What if I was a long-time co-owner of a very good team, and last season took over as owner in a seamless transition with all the same agents & coaches?

What if I have a team that never boosts or buys CEQ, so I've been dominant in the regular season, but lose in the 1st or 2nd round of the playoffs each year?

Also, do you use winning % or all-time wins?

All-time wins wouldn't seem to be fair, because you would promote a team that's gone 8-8 for the last 6 seasons over a team that has lost only 1 or 2 games over the past 2 years. But if you use winning %, that's not exactly fair, either. We've seen some copper teams in recent years that had only 2-3 games against human teams. That really messes with their 'franchise' overall record.

I honestly don't think I would support this idea. I think using only the previous season is the only fair way to go. And this is coming from an owner that likely would have gotten to gold a lot sooner under your system.

And I agree with TT's talk about voting. I'd never be behind anything that requires voting (it's not a popularity contest), plus I don't see BORT EVER allowing something like that.

Ping's last post.

Too many variables and problems with all alternatives suggested. All good suggestions so far are NGTH because Bort can't code it.

I say use the tournaments to judge who goes next. Or use just the Silver tourney as the one spot to look and see which teams went far in it. Most likely the 2 teams in the championship will likely go gold, but those that made the final 4 should still be looked at.

Originally posted by Gerr
I say use the tournaments to judge who goes next. Or use just the Silver tourney as the one spot to look and see which teams went far in it. Most likely the 2 teams in the championship will likely go gold, but those that made the final 4 should still be looked at.

Completely disagree. A lot of very good teams just don't play tournaments, and even if they did, tourneys don't mean a whole lot.

Look at the new gold teams. About the only teams that made it to gold that played a lot of tourneys are Maine & Dirty, and both of them back-doored their way in

Several of the teams didn't play ANY scrimmages. There is an advantage to be gained by not playing tourneys.

Not to mention that you're forcing teams to buy (flex) their way into at-large spots, which is completely not fair.

I think a lot of people place way too much emphasis on tournament games. For example, Fairview is a fantastic team, but nobody talks about them b/c they don't play tourneys. You hear a lot more about some teams who lost in the 1st or 2nd round of playoffs simply b/c they're more visible.

If the tournaments actually meant something, you'd see more teams play in them and more teams would boost early to get the advantage.

Sounds like Gold.

Sounds like teams that do what it takes to win, which is what Gold is all about.

How long did FT wait to boost last season? Playoffs?

I'll bet that if you haven't boosted half of your team by day 20 you are going to be faced with a steep uphill battle to get in to playoffs this season.

It's a whole new ballgame.

Originally posted by Time Trial
If the tournaments actually meant something, you'd see more teams play in them and more teams would boost early to get the advantage.

Sounds like Gold.

Sounds like teams that do what it takes to win, which is what Gold is all about.

How long did FT wait to boost last season? Playoffs?

I'll bet that if you haven't boosted half of your team by day 20 you are going to be faced with a steep uphill battle to get in to playoffs this season.

It's a whole new ballgame.

Yup we are boosting after our cross conference game and really throwing a monkey into the game

No other way for Silver teams to play gold unless tourny's. With the return on Flex I join all I can.

Ping - you raise a lot of questions that I believe I clearly explained in my posts. The franchise definition is found at the bottom of the OP. I think you should re-read what I wrote in the OP and if you disagree with the Overall Goals of the promotion system I put forth, please propose what you think the goals should be.


ETA - Definition of a franchise up for discussion. Simplest and most logical definition would be same owner/same team/consecutive seasons owned. Should be a simple database query to write.



If you don't believe its a worthwhile objective to have a clearly defined promotion system, please just say so or offer up your best plan. Do you think the way it currently works is good enough? Let the controversey continue so debates like this can liven up the boards in the offseason into eternity?? You know I'm a smartass and can keep going with these.

The controversy is only in the backdooring around the script, not the script itself... and get off your high horse talking down to ping, he made clear points that were obviously in consideration of every comment you've made.

Originally posted by middawg
ETA - Definition of a franchise up for discussion. Simplest and most logical definition would be same owner/same team/consecutive seasons owned. Should be a simple database query to write.

Honest question: Does GLB even store that information? The way that trophies, avatars, etc get passed to new owners, I'm not sure that they actually keep track of the owner. Anybody know?

To be quite honest, likely not, it doesn't appear that way at all.