I dunno I think there would be some pro teams within that top 20.
Forum > Goal Line Blitz 2 > What has been most FUN for you in GLB2?
Galactic Empire
offline
offline
Originally posted by Absolut Zero
Yup. I had fun building HAHA, but it could wind up being a disaster.
When FSM eventually resets, I was thinking I'd do something funky as well. Possibly even go Zone.
Zone rules...got an int today.
Yup. I had fun building HAHA, but it could wind up being a disaster.
When FSM eventually resets, I was thinking I'd do something funky as well. Possibly even go Zone.
Zone rules...got an int today.
Galactic Empire
offline
offline
Originally posted by Parab00n
Same for me, this I need to win 15 games in a row to move a few spots isn't very fun. Take my team for example, losing to a lower tier team in Ground Assault didn't really hurt me at all. A loss like that should have pushed me down the rankings significantly, but it meant nothing. This offseason that game will be long gone and there is an excellent chance I'll start next season as a top 5 team without earning it. The only reason I'll be there is because teams that have played more games than me will have reset, I'll spend 1-2 seasons in the top 5 because it's my turn to be there and I'll reset moving up some other team in the top 5 because it's their turn to be there.
As far as parity goes, I'm still against the entire SS aspect all together. I just don't like it, changes have to be made based on the performance of SS players which effects regular players a lot more. In my perfect scenario the following changes would be made and improve GLB2 in my eyes.
-Flatten the tiers each off-season
-Get rid of SSs
-Discourage 1 dimensional teams, whether by giving the defense a bonus or putting a penalty on the offense
Hell no. I love super stars!
Same for me, this I need to win 15 games in a row to move a few spots isn't very fun. Take my team for example, losing to a lower tier team in Ground Assault didn't really hurt me at all. A loss like that should have pushed me down the rankings significantly, but it meant nothing. This offseason that game will be long gone and there is an excellent chance I'll start next season as a top 5 team without earning it. The only reason I'll be there is because teams that have played more games than me will have reset, I'll spend 1-2 seasons in the top 5 because it's my turn to be there and I'll reset moving up some other team in the top 5 because it's their turn to be there.
As far as parity goes, I'm still against the entire SS aspect all together. I just don't like it, changes have to be made based on the performance of SS players which effects regular players a lot more. In my perfect scenario the following changes would be made and improve GLB2 in my eyes.
-Flatten the tiers each off-season
-Get rid of SSs
-Discourage 1 dimensional teams, whether by giving the defense a bonus or putting a penalty on the offense
Hell no. I love super stars!
Galithor
offline
offline
Originally posted by Dee.
Let's just make all players S*s then?
that'd remove some of the interesting "roster design" strategy that GLB2 does well.
In fact, I think it's what GLB2 does considerably better than GLB1. Does anyone recall the variety of team designs we see in GLB2 back in GLB1? I don't think so. Even when you've got the same roster size and positions, how you've chose to distribute the S* players will considerably impact how your team will function.
Let's just make all players S*s then?
that'd remove some of the interesting "roster design" strategy that GLB2 does well.
In fact, I think it's what GLB2 does considerably better than GLB1. Does anyone recall the variety of team designs we see in GLB2 back in GLB1? I don't think so. Even when you've got the same roster size and positions, how you've chose to distribute the S* players will considerably impact how your team will function.
Cuivienen
offline
offline
Originally posted by bhall43
Seems really exploitable and unfair to non superstar players.
Care to explain? Seems like it would be unfair to owners, not players, because it would be harder (not impossible, but harder) to maintain a certain team style if you are going for a niche concept.
Seems really exploitable and unfair to non superstar players.
Care to explain? Seems like it would be unfair to owners, not players, because it would be harder (not impossible, but harder) to maintain a certain team style if you are going for a niche concept.
Cuivienen
offline
offline
Originally posted by Corndog
I mean, the K value probably could be increased again to help volatility and cause gutjobs to fall out faster, but teams with nearly identical records still aren't going to see a lot of movement.
Literally no one is saying that teams with nearly identical records should necessarily see any movement at all if they are already seeded correctly, let alone a lot. You are completely missing the point.
Nobody cares about great teams camping at the top. They care about great teams way down the ladder struggling to move up when they are obliterating much higher seeded teams. They care about gutted teams losing every game by triple digit scores sitting on past glory and staying in the top 20 for seasons.
Stop thinking in terms of getting spots 1-5 absolutely perfect and think about spots 5-infinity instead. You know, the vast majority of your customers. The excellent teams in the top 5 can deal with a little change to make the rest of the ladder work.
I mean, the K value probably could be increased again to help volatility and cause gutjobs to fall out faster, but teams with nearly identical records still aren't going to see a lot of movement.
Literally no one is saying that teams with nearly identical records should necessarily see any movement at all if they are already seeded correctly, let alone a lot. You are completely missing the point.
Nobody cares about great teams camping at the top. They care about great teams way down the ladder struggling to move up when they are obliterating much higher seeded teams. They care about gutted teams losing every game by triple digit scores sitting on past glory and staying in the top 20 for seasons.
Stop thinking in terms of getting spots 1-5 absolutely perfect and think about spots 5-infinity instead. You know, the vast majority of your customers. The excellent teams in the top 5 can deal with a little change to make the rest of the ladder work.
bhall43
offline
offline
Originally posted by Cuivienen
Care to explain? Seems like it would be unfair to owners, not players, because it would be harder (not impossible, but harder) to maintain a certain team style if you are going for a niche concept.
I would imagine it would be fairly easy to exploit based on statistics. Especially if I can build a network of Superstars around it.
Meanwhile a team of non superstars not only would be paying similar amounts as that superstar team just because statistics while not being nearly as good.
Care to explain? Seems like it would be unfair to owners, not players, because it would be harder (not impossible, but harder) to maintain a certain team style if you are going for a niche concept.
I would imagine it would be fairly easy to exploit based on statistics. Especially if I can build a network of Superstars around it.
Meanwhile a team of non superstars not only would be paying similar amounts as that superstar team just because statistics while not being nearly as good.
bhall43
offline
offline
its unfair to owners and players alike. But it would be mostly unfair to owners who can't network as well to exploit it.
Cuivienen
offline
offline
Originally posted by TxSteve
If there were a reset or 'squeeze' every offseason - this is what the ladder MIGHT look like:
#1 stunners (but only a minimal lead over hburg who only has 1 more loss)
#2 hburg
#3 MMA
#4 DA
#5 TT
#6 Run GLB
#7 Richmond
#8 MBR
#9 DD
#10 QC
#11 Whoville
#12 Run Defenders
#13 Wesley Chapel
#14 Capua
#15 Air Raid
#16 Battle Creek Mayhem
#17 Long Island Knights
#18 Nashville Sounders
#19 Ft Collins
#20 Tampa Sandmen
Not a ton of difference...BUT - with 6 games left -- still a lot of movement to be had. If the stunners went 3-3 -- we might drop as far as 5 to close out the season. Our win over DA the other day would have been HUGE for holding on to #1 -- and would have been a HUGE opportunity for them to move up...but instead it was mostly meaningless.
I beg to differ. That is a lot different where the ladder needs the most help - outside of the top 5. A lot of those teams you have listed in your top 20 are in the 20s or 30s on the ladder currently. That is a big difference to me.
If there were a reset or 'squeeze' every offseason - this is what the ladder MIGHT look like:
#1 stunners (but only a minimal lead over hburg who only has 1 more loss)
#2 hburg
#3 MMA
#4 DA
#5 TT
#6 Run GLB
#7 Richmond
#8 MBR
#9 DD
#10 QC
#11 Whoville
#12 Run Defenders
#13 Wesley Chapel
#14 Capua
#15 Air Raid
#16 Battle Creek Mayhem
#17 Long Island Knights
#18 Nashville Sounders
#19 Ft Collins
#20 Tampa Sandmen
Not a ton of difference...BUT - with 6 games left -- still a lot of movement to be had. If the stunners went 3-3 -- we might drop as far as 5 to close out the season. Our win over DA the other day would have been HUGE for holding on to #1 -- and would have been a HUGE opportunity for them to move up...but instead it was mostly meaningless.
I beg to differ. That is a lot different where the ladder needs the most help - outside of the top 5. A lot of those teams you have listed in your top 20 are in the 20s or 30s on the ladder currently. That is a big difference to me.
Absolut Zero
offline
offline
Originally posted by Corndog
Making top teams have the same ELO as the gutjob isn't going to stop that from happening either.
What? You have it reversed, the opposite is what's going to happen.
The gutjobs are going to be losing every time with the exception of when they play each other. If ELO is reset, the gutjobs would be out of ladder range very quickly.
If you don't believe that this will happen, just look at rookie. Take MoD, and this is even with early season rookie shenanigans where CPU players aren't that different from non-CPU. MoD actually won their 1st league game. Because of that, their ladder rank was tied for 1st overall. They lost the ladder game and fell to 37th overall. They then lost their next league game and fell to 46th overall. That means by the time the 2nd ladder opponent was being scheduled, the Top 25 teams were already safe from playing a CPU roster that had actually won once.
If there's a ladder reset, the better teams would only have to complain about possibly playing CPU rosters for 1 game, and they'd only have to complain about possibly playing gutjobs filled with random players (across several tiers) for only a few ladder match-ups after that.
From then on, it's only competitive teams playing each other. The ladder remains interesting throughout the season.
Making top teams have the same ELO as the gutjob isn't going to stop that from happening either.
What? You have it reversed, the opposite is what's going to happen.
The gutjobs are going to be losing every time with the exception of when they play each other. If ELO is reset, the gutjobs would be out of ladder range very quickly.
If you don't believe that this will happen, just look at rookie. Take MoD, and this is even with early season rookie shenanigans where CPU players aren't that different from non-CPU. MoD actually won their 1st league game. Because of that, their ladder rank was tied for 1st overall. They lost the ladder game and fell to 37th overall. They then lost their next league game and fell to 46th overall. That means by the time the 2nd ladder opponent was being scheduled, the Top 25 teams were already safe from playing a CPU roster that had actually won once.
If there's a ladder reset, the better teams would only have to complain about possibly playing CPU rosters for 1 game, and they'd only have to complain about possibly playing gutjobs filled with random players (across several tiers) for only a few ladder match-ups after that.
From then on, it's only competitive teams playing each other. The ladder remains interesting throughout the season.
bhall43
offline
offline
Originally posted by Cuivienen
The excellent teams in the top 5 can deal with a little change to make the rest of the ladder work.
Pretty much this. The top 5 are gonna be the top 5 and have very few meaningful games all season beyond playing each other over and over again. Worrying about them possibly having a couple lopsided games (which they are already gonna have) over the sake of the entire structure seems ridiculous.
The excellent teams in the top 5 can deal with a little change to make the rest of the ladder work.
Pretty much this. The top 5 are gonna be the top 5 and have very few meaningful games all season beyond playing each other over and over again. Worrying about them possibly having a couple lopsided games (which they are already gonna have) over the sake of the entire structure seems ridiculous.
Right....I was responding to Corndogs talking about the stunners and the fact that it is not a lot different at the top.
I think this would be a million times better and more accurate (though for simplicity sake I didn't include pro)
are you just nitpicking the "not a lot different" or would you not want to see the ladder look like this?
I think this would be a million times better and more accurate (though for simplicity sake I didn't include pro)
are you just nitpicking the "not a lot different" or would you not want to see the ladder look like this?
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
