Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Time Trial
I still think that the last ladder game of the season should be #1/2, #3/4, #5/6, #7/8, #9/10, etc. all the way down the ladder.

None of this "ten ladder ranks difference" for the final matchup of the season.

This is a good idea. Suggestions forum is <--- that way.

Originally posted by bhall43
At the very least force the final matchup within the top 10. Maine looks to be at kinda a disadvantage possibly with that matchup despite winning it in comparison to DD, Ronin, and Queen City. Funday probably can't get higher than a 2 despite a win because of Ronin and Queen City.

I haven't touched the #1 spot all season, and I think I'm step behind. The only way I envision stealing the #1 spot would be a blowout of Portland. Given that we're both rushing teams and our scrims have been back and forth, that's not happening.

I think Portland could grab #1, but Queen City is stuck at #2 at best, in my best judgment.

The ELO doesn't take into account the score does it? I would assume you have to be within grabs of the top spot considering the rest of the top 4 have been playing musical chairs there as of late. Though I dunno if you are close enough to do so with Maine and Queen City both winning. I would have to imagine you could grab it with a win and a Maine/DD loss.

Originally posted by Badhands
This is a good idea. Suggestions forum is <--- that way.

Not rly? It's a test, just pass it..

Originally posted by bhall43
The ELO doesn't take into account the score does it? I would assume you have to be within grabs of the top spot considering the rest of the top 4 have been playing musical chairs there as of late. Though I dunno if you are close enough to do so with Maine and Queen City both winning. I would have to imagine you could grab it with a win and a Maine/DD loss.

I thought there was a point differential inclusion, tied in to 'expected performance' based on rank differences, but I could be wrong.

OG probs gonna suck now that I totally fucked up all our contracts trying to resign people too early.

hmm...but other teams are signing just fine? Such confusion. I must have been in some cap loophole?

Originally posted by bhall43
OG probs gonna suck now that I totally fucked up all our contracts trying to resign people too early.

Originally posted by bhall43
hmm...but other teams are signing just fine? Such confusion. I must have been in some cap loophole?

what exactly happened?

Well as far as I can tell from looking at some of our contracts and renegotiated contracts on a couple different guys, it might be possible that when they gave me my team back this last offseason and resigned the guys automatically that all the guys with high contracts were given so for medium money. Which allowed me to sign almost every one of my guys that were on medium contracts to high? That is the only thing I can think of because when I hit resign everyone only half my own players were able to resign and almost the rest of the team was fucked. But there are a couple guys that when you hit renegotiate, they come up as the same numbers. So essentially all my personal players that were already high contracts and some others on the team were playing on high contract for medium money all season.

Originally posted by InRomoWeTrust
I thought there was a point differential inclusion, tied in to 'expected performance' based on rank differences, but I could be wrong.

No, score is not included. The 'expected performance' is based on the relative ratings (which are hidden) of the two teams. For example, if one team is rated at 1200 and another is rated at 1400, the 1400 team is expected to win 76% of the time. So winng is worth a smaller amount of points. If instead it is a 1400 vs 1300, they are only expected to win 64% of the time, and so if they win they get more ratings points.

Its based purely on difference in rating, so the same numbers hold for a 2400 vs 2200, for example.

damnit Doinitin.

Originally posted by bhall43
damnit Doinitin.

?

Originally posted by InRomoWeTrust
You're going down beardman!

On a side note, while Portland and Queen City haven't played in ladder matches, we have scrimmed 15 times this season. 6 wins, 8 losses, and a tie in those 15 games for Queen City.

our battle will be glorious.

Originally posted by Badhands
This is a good idea. Suggestions forum is <--- that way.

I suggested it on the test server and CornBland (whom I disagree with) and Bort didn't seem to be into it.

My actual suggestion was to make it start with 10 ranks and then halfway through the season reduce that to 5 ranks, and then have the final match always be 1 rank.

I also suggested that the rank disparity should be equivalent through the entire ladder, so that if #1 plays #5, #2 plays #6, and #3 plays #7, etc.

However, with the "favour your own age" rules in place, I don't know that this would work, in which case I'm fine with just doing it for the last game of the season (or fixing the age thing).

Back on the topic of the ladder... I think I beat Sunday Funday in a quickscrim one time. They have won the other 8 times. I can't think of a team I'd rather not play, tbh. I'd rather play DD or Maine than SF.