Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Laggo
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.

With it seasonal, players created now have little chance of being on it right now. As they get closer to veteran, they have a higher chance.

With it being career, they only have a chance once they retire.

Not sure how "ROOKIES DON'T HAVE A CHANCE TO BE ON IT RIGHT NOW" is somehow an issue with seasonal but not career. Players that play through their career will always "be at the top tier" eventually.

The only slight difference with your "after they retire" thing is somebody could get a rookie to sophomore then hurry up and retire to be on the HoF until someone else older retires. I'm not even sure that's a benefit.

Originally posted by Corndog

Not sure how "ROOKIES DON'T HAVE A CHANCE TO BE ON IT RIGHT NOW" is somehow an issue with seasonal but not career.

Because seasonal you are looking to be on the list for that season. Career you aren't really worried about about being on the top of the list as a rookie because you know you haven't nearly completed your body of work and will soon be judged along side the leaderboards accomplishments.

Originally posted by bhall43
Because seasonal you are looking to be on the list for that season.

Which is why I'll be adding a tier breakup, as soon as I figure out the best way to do it.

And I mean, it'll be easy enough to add a "career" thing that just adds up all of your seasons. I'm just trying to figure out why the seasonal is apparently so FUBAR'd.

This is the exact same problem GLB had with Season 1 players being the top of the molehill for 10 seasons straight while everybody else got their time to shine for 1 or 2 at the twilight of their careers.

Have we learned nothing from that?

Let's clarify something here.

I don't think anybody is saying a Seasonal ranking of performance is a bad idea. In fact, a lot of people really want to see good seasonal rankings which is why there is so much discussion on this topic. But a seasonal ranking of all tiers lumped together where you arbitrarily devalue people's stats by age is just bad game design. It sucks as a player to have someone a spot ahead of you in what is called the Hall of Fame with half the season you had. It doesn't make any logical sense to the player and just makes them feel like their efforts are meaningless as they will never be as "valued" as the player who happened to create earlier than him. Those aren't my personal feelings, that's my evaluation as a game designer.

You are so worried about people ruining the system for other players (you are talking maybe 0.5% of your playerbase here, more likely much less that would be involved or care about trying to cheat the HoF) that you are ruining the system through design for the majority of them.

I think it should be obvious why some kind of career ranking or an evaluation of how you did as a player in comparison to others is necessary. GLB1 didn't have this at the start and it was a heavily discussed and requested feature until it was eventually implemented in the form we know today. So why at the onset of GLB2 are we still pretending there isn't an interest? I don't think these two things need to be mutually exclusive. We can have both.

Originally posted by Corndog
Which is why I'll be adding a tier breakup, as soon as I figure out the best way to do it.

And I mean, it'll be easy enough to add a "career" thing that just adds up all of your seasons. I'm just trying to figure out why the seasonal is apparently so FUBAR'd.

Because it currently isn't tier'd. That is the only reason I find it "FUBAR". And I am fine with a seasonal award but a HoF is a career achievement. People like to stack their careers side by side with other people. Regardless of certain gaming the system stuff. Like I said though it would be nice to come up with a cool way to do the career validation due to the rookie and vet variables. But that is a bit down the line yet.

Let me try and phrase something differently.

Everybody that is saying "Strength of Schedule should play a part"

What do you think that means exactly, and can you prove that you are not just adding RNG but identifying a real problem and solving it?

Originally posted by Laggo
Let me try and phrase something differently.

Everybody that is saying "Strength of Schedule should play a part"

What do you think that means exactly, and can you prove that you are not just adding RNG but identifying a real problem and solving it?



You don't find it different that one QB is playing top 5 teams week after week while another QB is playing teams in the 50's to 100's? I don't think a large weight should be put on it but it should give a little bump to your accomplishments playing elite competition day in and day out. If you truly were a top end QB that shouldn't be a problem should it?

Originally posted by Laggo
It doesn't make any logical sense to the player and just makes them feel like their efforts are meaningless as they will never be as "valued" as the player who happened to create earlier than him.

Until the people ahead of them retire.

Originally posted by Laggo
This is the exact same problem GLB had with Season 1 players being the top of the molehill for 10 seasons straight while everybody else got their time to shine for 1 or 2 at the twilight of their careers.

Have we learned nothing from that?

Yes, we have, which is why the first wave of players retires the next wave will not have to worry about them in the current ranking list.

Originally posted by Laggo
But a seasonal ranking of all tiers lumped together where you arbitrarily devalue people's stats by age is just bad game design.

Thankfully, player's stats aren't "arbitrarily devalued by age".

The weight of each season's accomplishments obviously would get bigger too on career accomplishments. A lot of rookie seasons will have a bunch of variables. Sophmore seasons too. Vet seasons may need some thought due to season boosts although that might just have to be a deal with it type thing as they want you to pay for those seasons.

Career also has the added detriment of penalizing people for making experienced players, or using the catch up feature, and such.

Originally posted by Corndog
Career also has the added detriment of penalizing people for making experienced players, or using the catch up feature, and such.

That is why you weight it more the higher tiered you go.

Well, now that we're done arguing and the giant posts have slowed down...what do you think is the best way to break them into tiers?

I'm thinking there's two ways. One is saving the tier of the league they play in on the first game of the season. "Downside" of that is that if they play one game on sophomore, then switch to a rookie team, they are still competing in sophomore. Stats will likely be countered by strength of schedule differences, and they will be low on the sophomore ladder (where they currently are with this version).

Then there's the "saving it based on last game they played", but then you could have rookies play on a sophomore team or whatever most of the season, then drop down into rookie and suddenly be at the top of the boards. This even becomes a bigger issue with like Professional to Veteran when there's a lot less disparity between player builds.

After typing it out, the former seems like the only real way to do it.

Originally posted by Corndog

After typing it out, the former seems like the only real way to do it.

Agreed for sure. Basically you are screwing yourself rather than gaming the system. You take a chance when you sign into a league above your grade.

Originally posted by bhall43
Agreed for sure. Basically you are screwing yourself rather than gaming the system. You take a chance when you sign into a league above your grade.

Though I guess the opposite is true.

They could sign with a rookie team for the first game, then jump to a sophomore team and gain huge benefits for strength of schedule.

But then I guess they are a level 0 in a sophomore league...so if they are putting up big stats, then they deserve it. Still weird for them to be dominating rookie tier while they are on a sophomore team though, and still pretty gamey.

What about if it saves it to the highest tier they play at?

That might make the most sense.