Warrior General Games

Because seasonal is rigged.

If you adjust the value of stats based on the tier you are playing in, than as we see currently it is virtually impossible for anybody but the highest current tier of players to do well. You can try to balance this formula, but it is an extremely difficult task to come up with a fair way to assign value to the same action 6 ways without an exponential effect between the bottom and the top. If a Veteran TD is worth more than a Sophmore TD which is worth more than a Rookie TD... how do you keep a Rookie able to compete with a Veteran?

If you do not adjust the stats and just list players as they perform, then Rookies will dominate the list as Rookie leagues usually have more CPU or assembling teams making it easier to pad stats than later on when teams and builds are more established

I don't get how either of these options are more fair than just treating all players equally

Originally posted by Laggo
Because seasonal is rigged.

If you adjust the value of stats based on the tier you are playing in, than as we see currently it is virtually impossible for anybody but the highest current tier of players to do well. You can try to balance this formula, but it is an extremely difficult task to come up with a fair way to assign value to the same action 6 ways without an exponential effect between the bottom and the top. If a Veteran TD is worth more than a Sophmore TD which is worth more than a Rookie TD... how do you keep a Rookie able to compete with a Veteran?

If you do not adjust the stats and just list players as they perform, then Rookies will dominate the list as Rookie leagues usually have more CPU or assembling teams making it easier to pad stats than later on when teams and builds are more established

I don't get how either of these options are more fair than just treating all players equally

If it's career, then rookies don't have a chance to be on it anyway, so I don't see how that's an argument either way.

I mean, I'm planning on breaking it up by tiers...is that the ONLY reason it's "rigged" and "broken"?

Originally posted by Corndog
Why?

I don't get how career is better or more meaningful

Because that is a real HoF? Because everyone gets the same length of career from rookie to vet with only a few variables of how long your vet career is. One season has to end up being broken down by age or it is just kinda insane making comparisons. I mean if you want to break it down into tiers fine. But the way it is now is just sort of silly. And once you break it down into tiers you still would like a true HoF because you want a career goal to live up to.

Tryin' to catch me ridin' dirty.

Originally posted by Corndog
Obviously, it isn't an "either or" situation, but if it was, I don't see the benefit of a largely stagnant career records. Does anyone take GLB1's HoF even remotely serious?

The number 1 all time offensive player is a 585 day old QB playing in Regional Pro Casual Competitive #2, on a team that is entirely CPU besides him.

GLB 1's HoF isn't similar though. People just sit on their players forever and gain stats far past plateau. Here you have a barrier for statistical use and when you reach the end of plateau you are then thrown into an entirely different universe. How are the 2 even remotely comparable?

Originally posted by bhall43
Because that is a real HoF? Because everyone gets the same length of career from rookie to vet with only a few variables of how long your vet career is. One season has to end up being broken down by age or it is just kinda insane making comparisons. I mean if you want to break it down into tiers fine. But the way it is now is just sort of silly. And once you break it down into tiers you still would like a true HoF because you want a career goal to live up to.

Simple.

Originally posted by bhall43
How are the 2 even remotely comparable?

Racking up stats against awful competition.

Half the people here are arguing for no strength of schedule and just a flat number comparison.

It would be nice if you could do a solid to everyone competing for the career HoF but that would probably take some thought...

1. Rookie season would have to have a really low value due to the experience feature.
2. Vet season would have to use some sort of averages to weigh one and done guys and 4 (or is it 5?) year vets.
3. Some emphasis would have to be put on having put forth consistently good vet seasons so the one and done's didn't overrun the leaderboard.

I mean, here's what happens when it's just a career thing...

A handful of people game the system by using their player every single play in every single game.

Then to one up that, the next person has to spam their player every single game AND gimp the defense so he gets more attempts.

And then to get on the board, you have to just have an entirely CPU team besides your player and spam him every single play in every single game.

And then you've "won" the HoF and in doing so made the entire thing pointless for everyone else unless they can find a way to game it even more than you.

Originally posted by Corndog
Racking up stats against awful competition.

Half the people here are arguing for no strength of schedule and just a flat number comparison.

No matter how you do it you are going to have to deal with racking up stats versus awful competition. That is besides the point. Your example was a 500+ old player still racking up stats in GLB1. You can't do such things in GLB2.

Originally posted by Corndog
I mean, here's what happens when it's just a career thing...

A handful of people game the system by using their player every single play in every single game.

Then to one up that, the next person has to spam their player every single game AND gimp the defense so he gets more attempts.

And then to get on the board, you have to just have an entirely CPU team besides your player and spam him every single play in every single game.

And then you've "won" the HoF and in doing so made the entire thing pointless for everyone else unless they can find a way to game it even more than you.

So I can't do that every season the way it is now?

Originally posted by bhall43
So I can't do that every season the way it is now?

You could, but after you got bored of it your player wouldn't be at the top anymore, and other people would have a shot at it. With it only being career based once you win the "gaming the system" race it's pretty much locked down.

Originally posted by Corndog
If it's career, then rookies don't have a chance to be on it anyway, so I don't see how that's an argument either way.


What?

I don't even...

There are 30 games a tier. Legend is the final tier. [Regardless of when a player hits Legend, they will hit Legend having played 150 games. That's the "career". That's the snapshot you rank in the Hall of Fame.

Some season 1 guy might retire his dot 30 games before mine, but when my dot hits Legend and I retire him our careers will be completely comparable game & competition wise (at least in the general sense).

Rename the HoF (lol @ whoever named it a HoF without googling the definition) into an All Star list and give people seasonal player trophies for placing on that, and save the real Hall of Fame for you know - career accolades.

-------------------------------

lol at the argument that people will game the system. Why put anything in the game? Superstars, oh man people are going to game the system. Better scrap that idea. Letting OC/DC's pick their playbook? Oh man people are definitely going to game that. Letting owners create their own rosters without forcing positions on them? Definitely going to get gamed.

We should really just get rid of GLB at this point, since it is so susceptible to abuse.

and tbh...im kinda pissed about the CPU thing. I thought there was going to be a human controlled rule in GLB2 from talks on the test server or you get stripped of a team.