Nuuuuuuuuu, don't take away my #1 ladder trophies!!!!!
Forum > Suggestions > Continued improvement of ladder system. Ladder rant #645
Zaranthuul
offline
offline
Originally posted by mrm708
Nuuuuuuuuu, don't take away my #1 ladder trophies!!!!!
Not really wanting to take away tier competition but unless there is a good idea on modification, current ladder design leads to corn dogs statement of intent which means no tiers no tier trophy
Nuuuuuuuuu, don't take away my #1 ladder trophies!!!!!
Not really wanting to take away tier competition but unless there is a good idea on modification, current ladder design leads to corn dogs statement of intent which means no tiers no tier trophy
mrm708
offline
offline
Just leave it how it is... There aren't top teams for a given tier buried down the ladder due to ladder mechanics. Sure, the top 5 could reshuffle a small amount if they played each other a bunch of times, but in the long run this system should do a good job of ordering teams in a reasonable ranking.
Mezirah
offline
offline
Originally posted by pottsman
This, I like. It gives plenty of range early in the season, letting the ladder "shake out" some, but come playoff time, we'll get more 1 vs 2 type matches.
As long as the back 1/3 of the season could somehow be all ladder, the ladder experience in lower tiers would be great.
Originally posted by Corndog
But I mean, ladder was never meant to, still isn't intended to, and probably won't be designed to figure out "who is the best seasoned team". It was never meant to be a tier based tournament to crown a champ. It was meant to rank all the teams in the game, and get decent matchups, regardless of tier.
Outside of a few outliers, it's staggeringly effective at that.
This is the problem for me, and why this thread is in 'suggestions.' I suggest changing up this line of thinking and making ladders main goal is to see who built the best teams season to season. This game has a lot of ego driven players who seek bragging rights. You even have a trash talk forum, yet your game doesn't support your player base because of this global tier system. I would prefer to let us whip our dicks out and see who has the biggest every season, because, being assigned to leagues robs us of the very nature the community seeks. Don't come back with the fact I could request a scrimmage as often as I want and gain bragging rights there, because no one has time for all dat. Also scrimmages can be denied.
Originally posted by Galactic Empire
But whatever...for some reason, lots of folks around here think it is fun to play higher tier, inactive teams with boat loads of more SP. If you cats don't care what you are ranked in your tier, then why even bother to put your tier ranking on your page. Because if the top teams in a tier are never, or hardly ever, playing the top 10 or 5 teams in their tier, that ranking means nothing.
QFT.
Originally posted by Corndog
So you think the game would be better if I just removed them?
No, just justify them. People want to know who is the best. We can have 2 types of competitive games, one against a tier team, to see where we belong in the tier, and #2, possibly competitive game drawn from the global tier. Why is #2 the chosen method nearly every week? I'd prefer zero games vs higher tiers. I want to know who's more of a bad ass among my piers. Massive amounts of SP and signature abilities can change things up as higher tier teams have had more time to allow their team builds to mature, so even bad teams are given finally validity of their original concepts when building their styles vs lower tier teams and sometimes it shines through which is unfair in a ladder race.
Originally posted by TxSteve
agree - it works pretty well -- and we haven't even seen it operate when there is more than one "vet tier" so to speak (we'll get that next season).
WTF are you talking about. The global tier is the top ladder, the rest of us are just peasants. If this game didn't have such an emphasis on player builds on outcomes, and lower tier teams could fight for the top 10 spots in the global tier, fine. But the game is too imbalanced tier to tier. You can't compete until you are in the top ladder. How is this a working system? Salty is hanging in the global rankings as being something to watch, but that's only because this game is bleeding owners and agents weekly. Justification to 1 team in the global fight just because dozens have left isn't exactly proof it's working.
Originally posted by Zaranthuul
You said it yourself the intent was never to have a champ crowned. The design of the ladder doesn't even suit itself to recognizing a true champion for a tier.
Why segregate ladders into tiers with tier rankings themselves and crown a false champion if it was never the intent?
Why not?
You said it yourself the intent was never to have a champ crowned. The design of the ladder doesn't even suit itself to recognizing a true champion for a tier.
Why segregate ladders into tiers with tier rankings themselves and crown a false champion if it was never the intent?
Why not?
I mean, we give out trophies for all star players, and we don't go through every possible hoop to calculate that they are better than other players in a perfect head to head matchup.
Relativity is a thing. Fortunately, ELO has been proven to be a pretty good way to estimate relative skill levels without actually playing each other.
Relativity is a thing. Fortunately, ELO has been proven to be a pretty good way to estimate relative skill levels without actually playing each other.
Edited by Corndog on Sep 20, 2014 15:16:52
Sov.
offline
offline
Originally posted by Corndog
But I mean, ladder was never meant to, still isn't intended to, and probably won't be designed to figure out "who is the best seasoned team". It was never meant to be a tier based tournament to crown a champ. It was meant to rank all the teams in the game, and get decent matchups, regardless of tier.
Outside of a few outliers, it's staggeringly effective at that.
i think the prob is this is being taken as too black and white, its not a matter of only playing teams in your tier or to figure out "who is the best seasoned team" and its certainly not a matter of this current setup of playing teams a division or two higher (mostly all inactive with default gameplans) weekly on ladder which imo does the opposite of provide "decent matchups, regardless of tier". granted yes, once any team finishes leveling to veteran, problem solved. mostly all active teams with play other top teams weekly for ladder games but the negative side is all the lower ranked teams are unprotected and a large portion of them get discouraged along the way and break up or quit and activity declines overall.
im no coder but i would just assume there was some way to add a slightly better balance for the lower ranked teams, journeyman and down. with so many rookie teams, rookie teams should only play other rookie teams on ladder, sophmore plays sophmore/seasoned only, then from there up its 1 tier above 1 tier below max. i dont see how that would turn into a clusterfuck and uneven matchups in the vet tier because a change to the system would add to more teams sticking around and hitting the pro and vet ranks and then the tier would have more competition and balance. i think its a matter of chicken or the egg with this type of balancing, but youre the expert obv on the formulas, its just a suggestion from another point a view
But I mean, ladder was never meant to, still isn't intended to, and probably won't be designed to figure out "who is the best seasoned team". It was never meant to be a tier based tournament to crown a champ. It was meant to rank all the teams in the game, and get decent matchups, regardless of tier.
Outside of a few outliers, it's staggeringly effective at that.
i think the prob is this is being taken as too black and white, its not a matter of only playing teams in your tier or to figure out "who is the best seasoned team" and its certainly not a matter of this current setup of playing teams a division or two higher (mostly all inactive with default gameplans) weekly on ladder which imo does the opposite of provide "decent matchups, regardless of tier". granted yes, once any team finishes leveling to veteran, problem solved. mostly all active teams with play other top teams weekly for ladder games but the negative side is all the lower ranked teams are unprotected and a large portion of them get discouraged along the way and break up or quit and activity declines overall.
im no coder but i would just assume there was some way to add a slightly better balance for the lower ranked teams, journeyman and down. with so many rookie teams, rookie teams should only play other rookie teams on ladder, sophmore plays sophmore/seasoned only, then from there up its 1 tier above 1 tier below max. i dont see how that would turn into a clusterfuck and uneven matchups in the vet tier because a change to the system would add to more teams sticking around and hitting the pro and vet ranks and then the tier would have more competition and balance. i think its a matter of chicken or the egg with this type of balancing, but youre the expert obv on the formulas, its just a suggestion from another point a view
Edited by chillbrah on Sep 20, 2014 15:35:32
Mezirah
offline
offline
I've been associated with half a dozen networks and groups of players, and most people say 'i hate playing higher level teams' no matter where we are in the ladder race. This includes being on a crappy team, say, 60th in the tier, and instead of playing #59, being forced to play a fully active lower tier team that has a good shot of dragging you even lower. It's a handful of agents who like this system only. Put it to a poll. I just hope this whole thing isn't to hide behind more code work. That would be sad.
Galactic Empire
offline
offline
Originally posted by Corndog
So you think the game would be better if I just removed them?
Yes...because the way it is now, you are not the clear cut top team in a tier if you finish #1, because you don't even play some of the other top teams in your tier. This is exactly why I said we should only play teams in our tier and end the season with a big 16 or 32 team tourny.
So you think the game would be better if I just removed them?
Yes...because the way it is now, you are not the clear cut top team in a tier if you finish #1, because you don't even play some of the other top teams in your tier. This is exactly why I said we should only play teams in our tier and end the season with a big 16 or 32 team tourny.
Galactic Empire
offline
offline
Originally posted by mrm708
Just leave it how it is... There aren't top teams for a given tier buried down the ladder due to ladder mechanics. Sure, the top 5 could reshuffle a small amount if they played each other a bunch of times, but in the long run this system should do a good job of ordering teams in a reasonable ranking.
Let me ask you a question. Did you like the way NCAA crowned a champion with the BCS? Hell, that is even a better way to crown a champ than this way, because at least the subjective top 2 teams play for the 'ship. The way it is now was how NCAA was 20 years ago when the 'ship would be given to a #1 team who might not even play a top 5 team all season long.
Just leave it how it is... There aren't top teams for a given tier buried down the ladder due to ladder mechanics. Sure, the top 5 could reshuffle a small amount if they played each other a bunch of times, but in the long run this system should do a good job of ordering teams in a reasonable ranking.
Let me ask you a question. Did you like the way NCAA crowned a champion with the BCS? Hell, that is even a better way to crown a champ than this way, because at least the subjective top 2 teams play for the 'ship. The way it is now was how NCAA was 20 years ago when the 'ship would be given to a #1 team who might not even play a top 5 team all season long.
Edited by Galactic Empire on Sep 21, 2014 10:34:30
mrm708
offline
offline
Originally posted by Galactic Empire
Let me ask you a question. Did you like the way NCAA crowned a champion with the BCS? Hell, that is even a better way to crown a champ than this way, because at least the subjective top 2 teams play for the 'ship. The way it is now was how NCAA was 20 years ago when the 'ship would be given to a #1 team who might not even play a top 5 or 10 team all season long.
A ladder system isn't about having a championship game. It's about which teams have played the best over the course of their teams entire history.
And to answer your question, I really despise college football in general and feel like they have probably the worst way of crowning a champ out of any sport. I follow NFL, NBA, MLB and college basketball but I stopped following college football years ago. However, comparing that to the ladder system is apples and oranges in my opinion. The BCS and GLB2 ladder system aren't trying to accomplish the same thing.
Let me ask you a question. Did you like the way NCAA crowned a champion with the BCS? Hell, that is even a better way to crown a champ than this way, because at least the subjective top 2 teams play for the 'ship. The way it is now was how NCAA was 20 years ago when the 'ship would be given to a #1 team who might not even play a top 5 or 10 team all season long.
A ladder system isn't about having a championship game. It's about which teams have played the best over the course of their teams entire history.
And to answer your question, I really despise college football in general and feel like they have probably the worst way of crowning a champ out of any sport. I follow NFL, NBA, MLB and college basketball but I stopped following college football years ago. However, comparing that to the ladder system is apples and oranges in my opinion. The BCS and GLB2 ladder system aren't trying to accomplish the same thing.
Galactic Empire
offline
offline
Originally posted by Corndog
Relativity is a thing. Fortunately, ELO has been proven to be a pretty good way to estimate relative skill levels without actually playing each other.
Ok...well why not just play each other and find out who the best is on your tier?
Relativity is a thing. Fortunately, ELO has been proven to be a pretty good way to estimate relative skill levels without actually playing each other.
Ok...well why not just play each other and find out who the best is on your tier?
Galactic Empire
offline
offline
Originally posted by mrm708
A ladder system isn't about having a championship game. It's about which teams have played the best over the course of their teams entire history.
And to answer your question, I really despise college football in general and feel like they have probably the worst way of crowning a champ out of any sport. I follow NFL, NBA, MLB and college basketball but I stopped following college football years ago. However, comparing that to the ladder system is apples and oranges in my opinion. The BCS and GLB2 ladder system aren't trying to accomplish the same thing.
Well then stop having a tier champion because you are not really a tier champ if you never or hardly ever play other top teams in your tier.
A ladder system isn't about having a championship game. It's about which teams have played the best over the course of their teams entire history.
And to answer your question, I really despise college football in general and feel like they have probably the worst way of crowning a champ out of any sport. I follow NFL, NBA, MLB and college basketball but I stopped following college football years ago. However, comparing that to the ladder system is apples and oranges in my opinion. The BCS and GLB2 ladder system aren't trying to accomplish the same thing.
Well then stop having a tier champion because you are not really a tier champ if you never or hardly ever play other top teams in your tier.
Hey - I'd be all for adding some kind of off day tier tournament toward the end of each season. seems like that would solve everyone's problem.
Leave the ladder as is.
leave leagues as they are
add a tier championship tournament at the end of each season (with 8 or 16 teams -- whatever makes sense)
Leave the ladder as is.
leave leagues as they are
add a tier championship tournament at the end of each season (with 8 or 16 teams -- whatever makes sense)
mrm708
offline
offline
Originally posted by Galactic Empire
Well then stop having a tier champion because you are not really a tier champ if you never or hardly ever play other top teams in your tier.
In my opinion, you are if you have the highest ELO after a 30 game season (or multiple 30 game seasons for teams beyond rookie). A "better" team could be RNGed out of a win in a championship game just as easily as they can be ladder matchuped out of the #1 spot (I still don't really think this is actually happening.)
Well then stop having a tier champion because you are not really a tier champ if you never or hardly ever play other top teams in your tier.
In my opinion, you are if you have the highest ELO after a 30 game season (or multiple 30 game seasons for teams beyond rookie). A "better" team could be RNGed out of a win in a championship game just as easily as they can be ladder matchuped out of the #1 spot (I still don't really think this is actually happening.)
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
