Warrior General Games

PS: the same thing goes for game xp.
Get rid of it.
If a guy doesn't start at the beginning of his career he is likely to get less game xp. From then on, his lower xp means he is going to be less likely to start for the rest of his career - compared with the guy who began life as a starter.
Just ditch it.

As a general rule of thumb, anything that amplifies advantages is likely to turn into a bad idea.

In software engineering, as in the rest of engineering, positive feedback loops tend to have negative effects.

Originally posted by oauitam
Leagues become competitive when league games are competitive.

Remove morale.

GLB morale means that teams which are already winning have a greater chance of increasing their winning margin. The only time this makes games more competitive is if somehow the underdog gets an early lead. By definition, this isn't common. In every other case it makes games less competitive.

Sure the word 'morale' can be applied to real world football. The word 'morale' in GLB currently describes the system which fosters blowouts by amplifying slight, potentially overcomable advantages into landslides.

Steve

Agree 110%

The draft is not a good idea. If every team owner on the site, were "nice guys" and worked hard to keep everyone involved, that might fix that side, but you will still have player owners who want unrealistic things for their players.

If you cannot build a player and play the game with friends, then the game will lose even more draw.

Originally posted by PinTBC
The draft is not a good idea.

I agree. The last thing this game needs is another reason for teams to gut/sandbag. And unless draft order was determined by an unweighted lottery where every team has the same chance of getting the #1 pick, teams that didn't think they could win a championship would be losing games on purpose in order to get a better pick.

Originally posted by oauitam
PS: the same thing goes for game xp.
Get rid of it.
If a guy doesn't start at the beginning of his career he is likely to get less game xp. From then on, his lower xp means he is going to be less likely to start for the rest of his career - compared with the guy who began life as a starter.
Just ditch it.

As a general rule of thumb, anything that amplifies advantages is likely to turn into a bad idea.

In software engineering, as in the rest of engineering, positive feedback loops tend to have negative effects.

While I'm not necessarily against your point of removing game XP, if you can't find a team to get max XP on from day 1 then you are doing it wrong...

Do away with trophies and MVP awards. Go with a numerical rating for players and teams. The tougher the competition the higher the rating for winning or losing.

Originally posted by Dr. E
Do away with trophies and MVP awards. Go with a numerical rating for players and teams. The tougher the competition the higher the rating for winning or losing.

This is actually an interesting idea. I had suggested ranking games with metrics such as lead changes and so on during the game to create a team ranking. Your idea sounds interesting since it would rank each player and then I assume the combination of all players on a team could then give a team ranking or value.

Of course the numerical rating would have to be far superior to the current global ranking system in the player awards.

Date [GS] Opponent (Overall)(Spread) Score
06/04/2010 New York Mohawks(66) (+3) W 255-0
06/06/2010 at Masters of the Brazilian Wax(69) (0) W 199-3
06/08/2010 Gyllebo Badgers(57) (+12) W 255-0
06/10/2010 at ANDERSON BOYZ(63) (+6) W 138-0
06/12/2010 Honolulu Sharks(66) (+3) W 255-0
06/14/2010 at Boondock Skullcaps(63) (+6) W 255-0
06/16/2010 Ditka's Army(69) (0) W 189-0
06/18/2010 at Omaha Tornados(63) (+6) W 255-0
06/20/2010 Waco Copperheads(69) (0) W 255-0

Working as intended?

Originally posted by TyrannyVaunt
Date [GS] Opponent (Overall)(Spread) Score
06/04/2010 New York Mohawks(66) (+3) W 255-0
06/06/2010 at Masters of the Brazilian Wax(69) (0) W 199-3
06/08/2010 Gyllebo Badgers(57) (+12) W 255-0
06/10/2010 at ANDERSON BOYZ(63) (+6) W 138-0
06/12/2010 Honolulu Sharks(66) (+3) W 255-0
06/14/2010 at Boondock Skullcaps(63) (+6) W 255-0
06/16/2010 Ditka's Army(69) (0) W 189-0
06/18/2010 at Omaha Tornados(63) (+6) W 255-0
06/20/2010 Waco Copperheads(69) (0) W 255-0

Working as intended?

That's just sad.

Originally posted by TyrannyVaunt
Date [GS] Opponent (Overall)(Spread) Score
06/04/2010 New York Mohawks(66) (+3) W 255-0
06/06/2010 at Masters of the Brazilian Wax(69) (0) W 199-3
06/08/2010 Gyllebo Badgers(57) (+12) W 255-0
06/10/2010 at ANDERSON BOYZ(63) (+6) W 138-0
06/12/2010 Honolulu Sharks(66) (+3) W 255-0
06/14/2010 at Boondock Skullcaps(63) (+6) W 255-0
06/16/2010 Ditka's Army(69) (0) W 189-0
06/18/2010 at Omaha Tornados(63) (+6) W 255-0
06/20/2010 Waco Copperheads(69) (0) W 255-0

Working as intended?

not really, that's why we are working on the issue.

Originally posted by TyrannyVaunt
Date [GS] Opponent (Overall)(Spread) Score
06/04/2010 New York Mohawks(66) (+3) W 255-0
06/06/2010 at Masters of the Brazilian Wax(69) (0) W 199-3
06/08/2010 Gyllebo Badgers(57) (+12) W 255-0
06/10/2010 at ANDERSON BOYZ(63) (+6) W 138-0
06/12/2010 Honolulu Sharks(66) (+3) W 255-0
06/14/2010 at Boondock Skullcaps(63) (+6) W 255-0
06/16/2010 Ditka's Army(69) (0) W 189-0
06/18/2010 at Omaha Tornados(63) (+6) W 255-0
06/20/2010 Waco Copperheads(69) (0) W 255-0

Working as intended?

Typical AAA scores. How the Leagues are setup is comical if nothing else, but if they keep adding more teams without the client base to support it, this problem will just continue to get worse. It has been for at least the past 2 Seasons now while adding fluff which if nothing else adds more imbalance. Coaches will just continue this imbalance!

Its looking to be an exciting season...

I really think that when you buy a team, you are set in the league and you stay in that league forever unless you can trade positions with another owner elsewhere.

When a team goes CPU from a League, its put into a purchase pool for people at a minimum level to try to keep them competitive with the existing teams. If no one buys the CPU team, then it plays with CPU players.

CPU players need to be made more competitive. Essentially the same attributes as the average player of the level they are set for, but no SA's or VA's etc. So they're good players, but wont get bonuses.

Stadiums for teams are left at whatever size they were when the team went CPU, to keep the teams competitive.

Instead of worrying about moving people up and down tiers (which destroys community) leaving people in their league for their lifetime means their forums etc can establish continuity and community.

Then, Create lots of _tournaments_ and have a robust tournament creation/bracket maker, trophy design so that not only does GLB create a set of basic tournaments that people can choose to enter but users who want to help can create tournaments etc of their own.

League competitiveness should still be at least as good as it is now and TOURNEY competitiveness could be much better controlled.

Vortus Idea:
---
Elite Pro #1
Elite Pro #2
Competitive Pro #3
Competitive Pro #4
Pro #5
Pro #6

Elite Cap 64 #1
Elite Cap 64 #2
Competitive Cap 64 #3
Competitive Cap 64 #4
Cap 64 #5
Cap 64 #6


Elite Cap 56 #1
Elite Cap 56 #2
Competitive Cap 56 #3
Competitive Cap 56 #4
Cap 56 #5
Cap 56 #6

The remainder of the lower leagues stay the same. Using the same system as in the current lower league elite system. Using the plain Cap leagues to shuttle bad teams, gutted teams, each of the main leagues at each cap could be full each season. Simple, effective, and rivalries would be maintained as teams worked up through the ladder together. And it gets rid of teams way outleveling others as there is a cap level for each.

Why multiple Pro leagues. Because not all Pro teams are created equal. But they are still better than lower leveled teams for the most part. Its so that each is played competition that is equal to themselves. Why have them (Elite/Competitive/Normal) in the lower leagues? In general, the teams from the Elite leagues are better than the teams in the competitive leagues. An Elite 42 is likely as good as a competitive 46, and it helps track where they should be as they move up.

Not as simple as just removing the regions. Also have to arrange the new leagues like the lower leagues are now. But when your are playing good competition the league trophy will mean something to you no matter what its called. If there are flaws in it, feel free to poke holes with something other than sarcasm.

Teams that don't compete are moved down to lower tiers either sideways from the higher Elite/Competition caps to the Regular caps or down level caps entirely if the roster does not meet the minimum standards set for each league .

Teams that are good move up either to higher leveled leagues, or sideways toward the Elite leagues.

Extending the caps all the way up will force teams to play where they need to be. No more 70's in AA.

Once in the Pro's, teams move sideways across the scale. Working up to the Elite leagues, or down to the Regular.

Teams that gut or rebuild have options on how far they want to drop down based on the levels of the players they want. Drop all the way down, or drop to a 42 cap, or a 56 cap.
---

+We make CPU players better

+We raise the cost to own a team a little.



So far this is the leading candidate. Who wants to pick it apart?

Originally posted by Enkidu98
Then, Create lots of _tournaments_ and have a robust tournament creation/bracket maker, trophy design so that not only does GLB create a set of basic tournaments that people can choose to enter but users who want to help can create tournaments etc of their own.

Adding in a team ranking system and more tournaments is always something we can add in the future too, would add competition.

Originally posted by DigitalDaggers
Vortus Idea:
---
Elite Pro #1
Elite Pro #2
Competitive Pro #3
Competitive Pro #4
Pro #5
Pro #6

Elite Cap 64 #1
Elite Cap 64 #2
Competitive Cap 64 #3
Competitive Cap 64 #4
Cap 64 #5
Cap 64 #6


Elite Cap 56 #1
Elite Cap 56 #2
Competitive Cap 56 #3
Competitive Cap 56 #4
Cap 56 #5
Cap 56 #6




Been advocating something like this for awhile. Big +1