Warrior General Games

Originally posted by DeeVee8
I'm a fan of the new ladder code. It's going to help even the playing field. Nice to finally get a mention in a ladder thread! But USC, we're off the sauce this season.

Had to go for the underdog though, glasgows earned it. But yeah your offense won't be fun to stop.

This was a great thread, thanks for expanding it USC. I think Rom_Fox's fear is that we will just get creamed and he will lose interest. I also sort of agree that I want to play Salty again. But let's see how we shake out with a season of it.

PS: My prediction, Alpine kicks the crap out of us Vase Breakers and we're not even close. But we'll learn something!

Originally posted by Sardonik00
This was a great thread, thanks for expanding it USC. I think Rom_Fox's fear is that we will just get creamed and he will lose interest. I also sort of agree that I want to play Salty again. But let's see how we shake out with a season of it.

NO! not at all. if we get creamed so what? I consider it a no lose situation. But what I am expressing an enjoyment of is having rivals which we can match up with and try to beat. If getting to play Hawaii is random it's not going to be like we 'win' our ladder by head to head competition with our bitter rivals. It makes our ladder empty .. we won't be playing each other

think about baseball and to a lesser degree the NFL and NBA. most of the games come from within their division with a sampling of games including a few interleague games. But the division is won or lost by head to head competition between teams and in September when they come down to the pennant there is a serious effort made to make sure the division is playing internal games only to keep the sense that the race is decided from head to head play not the randomness of which inter-league opponents you wound up facing.

if we play pros now and then that's fine (for what I'd prefer) but since the large majority of the games were pro this time it appears that we will be playing 'out of our conference' for 80% of the games or something ... so our ladder won't be decided based on how we play against each other but how we play against a totally different set of teams.

I have no rivalry with Alpine - I'm going to try to win despite the odds but I'm not expecting to, I have a significant sense of interest in playing Hawaii and Air Raid and the hOokers and Salty and all the teams we've grown up playing. if we wind up playing 80% internal and 20% external that should be a lot of fun, if it holds the way week 1 did then why have our ladder at all since we're playing 90% or so out of division?

Originally posted by USC_Trojans
6 of the top 15 play another journeyman team.

two of the top 9 play each other - 10 plays 16

i'd call that max 30% internal games and suggest that 30% external would get the excitement of 'can we beat these guys' along with the head to head aspect

Originally posted by o The Boss x
You were given the team that had always competed with DD and it resulted in Maine not even being able to compete in the top 10. I don't think your sub-par passing team has the capability to make any team fold.

I don't follow here - DD and maine were the same? or was DD a person?

Originally posted by Rom_Fox
I don't follow here - DD and maine were the same? or was DD a person?

DD was and is the #1 team in the game.
Maine was #2 for almost their entire existence. Then they fell out of the top 5 and couldn't win back in. Then they folded. You can probably figure out the rest.

Fun fact: With Greg Hughes signing for the Harrisonburg Bulldogs, two of my HBs are playing each other. Though Brooks doesn't do much anymore...

Originally posted by Time Trial
DD was and is the #1 team in the game.
Maine was #2 for almost their entire existence. Then they fell out of the top 5 and couldn't win back in. Then they folded. You can probably figure out the rest.

Wow. Talk about some major assumptions there.

I can't speak for PS3 definitively, but I had a pretty strong suspicion very early on that he was moving on from the game which is why he'd brought an OC and a DC. Then our OC went inactive along with a few other dots, our offense fell apart, and even though the defense was actually doing better than they had the season before, Maine was losing games. When USC finally came on to take over the offense, he helped quite a bit, but was stuck with the same problem I had. We knew what kind of players we needed to fix things to the new game meta, but no way to get them. Then PS3 announced he was leaving for reals, and with that announcement, it seemed like a lot of the other agents quit paying attention as well.

On the plus side, I learned a lot with my experiments since I had players that were different from what I'd been getting people to build for Lost Lounge. That in turn is why I was pretty aggressive changing things up on LL this offseason signing 10 new players

The net result is that LL's defense is going to be better than it would have without that experience, and I feel pretty good about where we'll be once we get to at least 50% chemistry or so with the new guys.

Originally posted by Xavori
Wow. Talk about some major assumptions there.

I can't speak for PS3 definitively, but I had a pretty strong suspicion very early on that he was moving on from the game which is why he'd brought an OC and a DC. Then our OC went inactive along with a few other dots, our offense fell apart, and even though the defense was actually doing better than they had the season before, Maine was losing games. When USC finally came on to take over the offense, he helped quite a bit, but was stuck with the same problem I had. We knew what kind of players we needed to fix things to the new game meta, but no way to get them. Then PS3 announced he was leaving for reals, and with that announcement, it seemed like a lot of the other agents quit paying attention as well.

On the plus side, I learned a lot with my experiments since I had players that were different from what I'd been getting people to build for Lost Lounge. That in turn is why I was pretty aggressive changing things up on LL this offseason signing 10 new players

The net result is that LL's defense is going to be better than it would have without that experience, and I feel pretty good about where we'll be once we get to at least 50% chemistry or so with the new guys.

Well, to be honest, those were facts and not assumptions.

DD was #1 for almost the entire game.
Maine was #2 for almost the entire game.
Maine fell out of the top 5 and didn't make it back in.
Maine folded.

Tell me where I made an assumption? Also, it was in response to Rom_fox's post regarding Boss' post, so any assumptions as to "why" were in his post, not my reply explaining the Boss post that he was confused about.

Maines defense was consistently solid for 3 straight seasons because they weren't just a gimmick. They had never been a dominant offense.

The top rivalries in the ladder last season were a mess and a few teams just played each other over and over because the ladder code was broken. Look at Salty Runback - 12 of 16 ladder games were vs just 2 other teams. That's not healthy, although it "fosters a rivalry" because you're playing the same team over and over.

Allowing teams to play other tiers will allow for more varied equal play, once the ratings of teams between tiers is corrected. And winning the ladder for a tier will be just as valid - in theory even playing wildly different schedules should result in getting to your correct elo if you play enough (assuming the model elo uses matches the reality of the distribution of skill, which it almost certainly doesn't but is probably a close enough approximation blah blah math).

NiborRis bring up a good point, last season's ladder was really stupid for us to be sure, but this season's is shaping up to be even stupider and I'm not a fan of the change.

We're going to get blown out by 20+ points tomorrow and there's absolutely no point to this matchup, it doesn't prove that we're any better or worse than the other teams in our tier, and it's not fun for the team kicking our ass, they won't get many ELO points. I'm sure they'd rather be playing against a top 10 team in their tier and have a real game on their schedule.

We've played against a fair amount of higher tier teams in general over the few last seasons. As you'd expect, there's 9999 broken tackles and pancakes against us, these matchups are a morale spiral waiting to happen. We did take wins every once and awhile, but it was mostly because at lower tiers teams had sketchier player builds and coaching - even though they were a tier above us, these teams were still ranked down in the 100s and just weren't great teams. At journeyman, though, there's none of that to be found, every cross tier matchup is going to be against the best teams in the game.

I'm still baffled as to why you guys all like the concept of ladder at all for this game. My concept of good matchup system for GLB2 is one that

a) Puts teams into the most games with evenly matched teams as possible
b) Decides who the best teams are

There just aren't enough teams in the game in any given tier that will go 50/50 against each other to run an open ladder, and people said playing the same teams over and over aren't fun. I bet it's reasonable to say that there are 15 other teams in the game that would go 50/50 with us; that looks like a perfect 16 team league or tournament to me. Maybe journeyman is a special case because it has less teams than other tiers, but the point stands, why not just have a 32 team league or tournament then?

Originally posted by Fumblerooski
I'm still baffled as to why you guys all like the concept of ladder at all for this game. My concept of good matchup system for GLB2 is one that

a) Puts teams into the most games with evenly matched teams as possible
b) Decides who the best teams are

So you're a big fan of the ladder system?

Originally posted by Corndog
So you're a big fan of the ladder system?

I think it's more:

"I want to play the top teams in my tier"
"I don't want to play the exact same team every week"

Right in the middle of that and perfecto.