Warrior General Games

Originally posted by TxSteve
wouldn't that be mostly temporary? might even make it a bit more exciting when 2 soph teams match up...rather than Minimares playing Victorious secret...again (as 1 example)

Also - wouldn't it make the ladder more accurate?

I'd expect some soph teams would love the semi-bye-week that playing a CPU or inactive seasoned team would offer (but I could be wrong)


It would definitely improve the integrity of the ELO rankings. I'm not sure if that's worth kind of ruining a good chunk of the forum activity, though. Top 10 *tier* threads would disappear if the top 10 were just playing awful tier+1 teams.

Originally posted by Corndog
It would definitely improve the integrity of the ELO rankings. I'm not sure if that's worth kind of ruining a good chunk of the forum activity, though. Top 10 *tier* threads would disappear if the top 10 were just playing awful tier+1 teams.

Would it not just fix it self after a few weeks? It seems like all those lower tier teams would eventually pass all the bad/inactive/CPU higher teams and eventually gather at a "wall" of sorts.

It has to happen eventually though doesn't it...

Otherwise things will never sort out...and the rankings aren't accurate.

In the long run I think those teams would want to be as high as possible since it will be pretty difficult to start closing in on the top 10/25 once everyone starts hitting the Vet leagues.

Originally posted by Parab00n
Would it not just fix it self after a few weeks? It seems like all those lower tier teams would eventually pass all the bad/inactive/CPU higher teams and eventually gather at a "wall" of sorts.

that is my expectation...so ya - a week or two of mixed games...and then the best soph teams end up together again wherever it is they actually belong based on ELO

Originally posted by Corndog
It would definitely improve the integrity of the ELO rankings. I'm not sure if that's worth kind of ruining a good chunk of the forum activity, though. Top 10 *tier* threads would disappear if the top 10 were just playing awful tier+1 teams.

This is true. Definitely something to consider. I don't think it'll kill the type of thread I'm trying to put together where I review the top 10 for the tier, but the matchup style discussion would definitely take a blow with fewer matchups in tier the higher you went and tighter ranged the auto-tier matchmaking got.

Maybe it's more worthwhile to do once the first few seasons worth of teams hit veteran, and then you'll have journeymen and professional teams more interested in how high they can get prior to reaching veteran. I can definitely see waiting till then before thinking about whether to rework the tier matchmaker.

Originally posted by Corndog
It would definitely improve the integrity of the ELO rankings. I'm not sure if that's worth kind of ruining a good chunk of the forum activity, though. Top 10 *tier* threads would disappear if the top 10 were just playing awful tier+1 teams.

I promise you it will have no effect on my rookie threads. I can snark on just about anything

Originally posted by Xavori
I promise you it will have no effect on my rookie threads. I can snark on just about anything

Well, it's also not just that.

It's generally probably more fun for the top 10 teams in a tier to play against each other and gameplan or whatever than just struggling against some inactive team with default tactics just because they are higher level. People who try and care the most playing against other people who try and care the most seems like the most fun.

I do agree with people that it would "work itself out" and they would eventually hit a sweet spot, because that's just how ELO works, but I'm not sure a more accurate ELO is the most fun in that situation.

I've had 5 ladders in a row against a team ahead...in all honesty - I've been generally happy with that as it gets me a little break from playing the same teams again -- and in many cases (not all) the older team is much easier to game plan against...but also presents a fun little challenge since they have more points spent.


Anyway - my vote after already having it 5 weeks in a row anyway - is that it is fine good and dandy...but others may disagree.

Originally posted by Corndog
Well, it's also not just that.

It's generally probably more fun for the top 10 teams in a tier to play against each other and gameplan or whatever than just struggling against some inactive team with default tactics just because they are higher level. People who try and care the most playing against other people who try and care the most seems like the most fun.

I do agree with people that it would "work itself out" and they would eventually hit a sweet spot, because that's just how ELO works, but I'm not sure a more accurate ELO is the most fun in that situation.

I vote for "leave it as it is."

Originally posted by Corndog
Well, it's also not just that.

It's generally probably more fun for the top 10 teams in a tier to play against each other and gameplan or whatever than just struggling against some inactive team with default tactics just because they are higher level. People who try and care the most playing against other people who try and care the most seems like the most fun.

I do agree with people that it would "work itself out" and they would eventually hit a sweet spot, because that's just how ELO works, but I'm not sure a more accurate ELO is the most fun in that situation.

I wonder if 2 seasoned teams, say Salty and Harrisonburg, if they got into the situation where they only ever played each other in ladder each week, but dominated their leagues, how high could they see-saw themselves up shielded from the journeymen teams while simply accumulating value from their league games? More importantly, how high would they be by the professional season? In the top 10, all the while protected from ladder games against the veteran top 10?

That's kinda what I'm picturing. A situation in Season 6 where there's professional teams in the overall top 10 that are shielded from playing the veteran teams because there's enough professional teams in the 10-20 range that they can matchup against with the 10-rank matchup rule.

Originally posted by Galithor
I wonder if 2 seasoned teams, say Salty and Harrisonburg, if they got into the situation where they only ever played each other in ladder each week, but dominated their leagues, how high could they see-saw themselves up shielded from the journeymen teams while simply accumulating value from their league games? More importantly, how high would they be by the professional season? In the top 10, all the while protected from ladder games against the veteran top 10?

That's kinda what I'm picturing. A situation in Season 6 where there's professional teams in the overall top 10 that are shielded from playing the veteran teams because there's enough professional teams in the 10-20 range that they can matchup against with the 10-rank matchup rule.

Galithor, you have no faith in the Dark Side.

Originally posted by Sardonik00
Galithor, you have no faith in the Dark Side.

haha, it'll more likely be several teams. But the point was simpler to illustrate with just 2 in the example.

It boils down to how much elo the seasoned top 10 can gain from league wins, while generally going .500 against each other otherwise. This will determine how high we float to the top each season while insulated by the matchmaker.

probably worth letting it play out just to see how it shakes out, then make tweaks after season 6 potentially. My initial thought though is that the "tier rule" for the matchmaker should look something like this:

Rookie - 10 ranks
Sophomore - 8 ranks
Seasoned - 6 ranks
Journeyman - 4 ranks
Professional - 2 ranks
Veteran - 0 ranks

Fits with the way skills work to a degree. the difference between a rookie and a sophomore team is considerably greater than what will be the difference between a professional and veteran team.

Fuck back to the drawing board. I feel so good about man defense in one game and then i just watch it get trashed in another. Pretty much unbelievable the skills needed to just put a body on a WR. Is there even a counter to HF? Because that would be pretty lol if people finally get their builds to a point of sticking with a WR only for triple star HF to just negate all of it.

I like the GLB1 style leagues (at least what it was from seasons 15 to 31 when we had our team) much better than GLB2.

For those who didn't play GLB1 in those days, each age tier had their leagues re-shuffled every season to promote competitive games. League #1 in each age tier was the "elite" league, all the best teams from the age tier were placed there. Unlike GLB2, all our league games were super competitive. The ladder sort of fills that void by forcing you to play teams of similar Elo, but you play the same teams over and over which is also boring.

I'm sure there are reasons it was done this way in GLB2, and it's better for the general player base, but as a try hard team we loved the World League, it maximized the number of competitive games we played and also let us face ALL the top teams instead of just a few, I was always curious why that got changed for GLB 2.