Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Time Trial
Chem isn't the big deal you are making it out to be.

Replacing 25% of your players a season wouldn't be a huge hit. Yes, they are all going to operate at 0 chem, but if you are a top ranked ladder team, you could just sit there at the top of the ladder and watch your opponents keep coming at you with farm teams (who may have perfect chem), but they will need to play you a hell of a long time, because your ELO should be fortified from playing top ladder teams for five seasons.

The 0 chem on 25% of your players hasn't proven to be a huge problem for teams like DD, who still sit at the top of the ladder despite making huge roster replacements.

It isn't? Because I am pretty sure that taking that kind of hit to your attributes in Vet league is going to be pretty valuable. Don't fool yourself with Rookie and Sophmore chemistry levels. And remember we are talking about replacing a superstar here. The regular players you will find a dime a dozen and replace as need be.

Originally posted by Time Trial
So do you pyramid or do you keep the Animal leagues/divs/rivalries alive?

I keep the leagues/rivalries in place and run a 4 day tournament between league winners just before offseason. During that time I run the special holiday fun games that Corndog was interested in running so the rest of GLB2 isn't bored waiting for the new season.

Originally posted by Time Trial
1) It would demonstrate which team was able to achieve the highest ELO in 10 seasons, so you wouldn't have the S1 teams always having an entire seasons worth of games over the others;
4) It would force people to create new players and always be caring about each season, because you only get 10 to prove you are the best... you can't just have 0 cares for 4 seasons and then get your ELO up using farm teams and recruitment once you get to plateau, because your 0 cares seasons will hurt your team retirement ELO.

You have a lot of misunderstandings on how elo ratings work. You should be able to go about 50/50 in the first 4 seasons and still make a run at the title in your final 6 seasons, especially if you get to play the other top teams a lot in the last few seasons.

And elo ratings aren't going to be comparable between eras, that's almost for certain. Much like they aren't in chess.

Originally posted by NiborRis
You have a lot of misunderstandings on how elo ratings work. You should be able to go about 50/50 in the first 4 seasons and still make a run at the title in your final 6 seasons, especially if you get to play the other top teams a lot in the last few seasons.

And elo ratings aren't going to be comparable between eras, that's almost for certain. Much like they aren't in chess.

So if DD continued to win 30 games a season against the top teams, wouldn't their ELO be much more ridiculous than it is right now?

Top teams syphon a little ELO from their league matches and their ladder games, then when DD beats them, they aren't beating up on teams with super low ELO scores, even if they are nowhere near DDs, they will all continue to grow their ELO every season at the top, despite losing to top teams because they will get to take a little bit from the bottom when they play their league matches.

Imagine this were to continue for 10 seasons.

The top of the ladder would be ELO rich and the bottom of the ladder would be ELO poor, so the ELOs of the top teams would continue to grow, despite losing to each other every now and then.

Now imagine those top teams start to retire, but DD stays. His ELO will be hundreds of points ahead of the teams coming in from the plateau, so DD's ELO won't grow very quickly despite winning and the odd time that they lose, the team that they beat should earn a lot of points. The odd time they lose, they will likely drop further than they would now because the team they lost to had a lower ELO.

Isn't that kind of right? If not, forget I said anything because I'm willing to just let the ELO gurus talk ELO.

If DD is going 30-2 every season then I'm not really sure who's supposed to catch them under any circumstances anyway. Even then, eventually the rating gain from the 30 wins should equal out the rating loss of the two losses and they stabilize into a "correct" elo rating. That should basically about +450 points ahead of the teams they are usually beating and losing to.

The point is, say DD resets in S3. And the rest of the top teams just keep - doing what they are doing. Mostly beating the lower teams, but occasionally losing in an "upset", and beating up each other. Reset DD starts winning 30-2 seasons. You think it would take DD 8 seasons to take over first place again? More like 3. The nature of elo rating is that your most recent results reflect a lot more in your rating. If you go back in time and change DD's 2nd game ever to a loss, then re-ran all the ratings, their rating would be very, very close to what it is right now. So looking at a rating in 10 seasons, what your rating was 6-7 seasons ago isn't that important.

Now, are we playing enough games that in 10 seasons it all evens out? Maybe not. But I kind of doubt DD keeps up this pace for 10 seasons, and as long as the winning percentages are more reasonable like 80% and 75% getting to "correct" rating values will be easier to get to.

None of this is an excuse to get the New Team ratings wildly wrong, though (which GLB is doing, btw) - we were talking 10 season horizons, but in the short term having an extra 1-2 seasons of inappropriate ladder matchups matters to those new teams. We'll see what happens as the S1 and S2 teams meet up in Vet, though - if they don't monkey around with the ratings too much in the next few levels, it should be just about okay by then.

Originally posted by kiolb
tecmo dudes

I like this.

Originally posted by bhall43
You are weirdly comparing this to GLB1. In GLB1 if I let go of my star QB (he isn't a superstar) and replace him with another of the same build. I lose 4 chemistry for the whole process at best. Here I not only have to take into account the financial part of my lineup but I also have to consider that this QB will be starting at 0 chemistry coming in.

The biggest difference between the 2 games is that more teams will likely just run with a new team rather than work to replace the teams they have. Because logically that makes more sense. But sure teams will want to continue success with their solo team as well. But that won't be the more desirable path for winning.

You might see people using their Superstar QB as a backup during his Professional tier, then releasing the old SS and bumping the new one up, somewhat bypassing the chemistry hit.

Originally posted by NiborRis
And elo ratings aren't going to be comparable between eras, that's almost for certain. Much like they aren't in chess.

Especially for the first wave.

The animal leagues are going from rookie to vet with no ceiling to hit their head on. Every generation afterwards will be hitting their head on the next tier if their ELO starts getting too out of hand.

Originally posted by Corndog
You might see people using their Superstar QB as a backup during his Professional tier, then releasing the old SS and bumping the new one up, somewhat bypassing the chemistry hit.

Sure if they don't care about stats. Team players deserve winning efforts. I applaud it.

Originally posted by Corndog
Especially for the first wave.

The animal leagues are going from rookie to vet with no ceiling to hit their head on. Every generation afterwards will be hitting their head on the next tier if their ELO starts getting too out of hand.

Actually I expect elo inflation to occur over time, but we'll see.

Originally posted by NiborRis
Actually I expect elo inflation to occur over time, but we'll see.

Don't know. Teams folding or resetting might remove enough points to offset everything else.

Theres also the good old scaling k value...which is easier to do with code than implement for chess.