Warrior General Games

The leagues need players. Players need agents. Keep it simple and try not to lose any more agents imo

Originally posted by Ubasstards
Bort, how about you restructure to a big pyramid but still give teams a region? For example the Kai could have a SAPL banner and play in a league with equal competition from any other regions? If that league has 20 teams with a USA flag and 1 from SAPL, 1 from EEPL, 1 from WEPL, 7 from SEAPL..........doesnt matter. Each team can have a region banner of their choice but be in a competitive league


This more or less fixes the region problem.

Originally posted by jdbolick
Originally posted by blln4lyf

Get rid of AE and VA's, walla 90% of the issues are gone. Also make the plateau last 3-4 seasons and boom this game is 100x as competitive.
qfwalla

Also, I personally like AE, but maybe we could just get rid of the percentage pieces or else convert them to flat bonuses? Using percentage modifiers anywhere in the code is a bad, bad idea. It's been the root cause of most problems Bort has had to deal with. Moreover, I don't think making player careers even longer is an answer. I'm against a longer plateau in general because I think turnover is a good thing (decline & retirement don't hurt competition unless people aren't creating as many good new dots as they used to, which is the real problem). The only extended plateau proposal I could tolerate would be the one that still has decline begin in the 11th season, but keeps accelerated growth longer than just to level 28, and then ends growth a couple of seasons earlier.


As for how to fix the league structure, the old format was considerably better. If you feel like the tiers of the pyramid structure create gaps that are too large between one and the next, then you can always do a box structure instead of a pyramid. So maybe you have AAA <- AA <- A <- BBB <- BB <- B, but instead of the league numbers halving with each tier advancement, you could have roughly the same amount from B through A. Then I imagine you'd have either all the playoff teams or a certain segment of them (I have no idea how the numbers work out on this) advance between tiers each season. That way you're competing against the same teams and developing rivalries, but not thrown into a situation where you're level 30s going up against level 50s.


AE without % works, and I didn't mean to imply longer careers. I'd be against that as well.

Why not a combination of ladder and pyramid... something like this

WL
Pro (current 8 regions... or cut to 6 and roll with USA, Canada, Europe, SA, Africa and Asia)
AAA (only one AAA per region... 4 teams that play in conf champ promote... eliminates 8 AAA leagues)
AA (only one AA per region... 4 teams that play in conf champ promote... eliminates 24 AA leagues)
A<BBB<BB<B following traditional pyramid scheme (conf champs promote)

This would condense the leagues yet allow regional affiliation and rivalries to build.

Of course, this would be in conjunction with the plan to decrease building time to lengthen the plateau (make plateau a true plateau).

All I've ever wanted to hear is why my simplistic idea would not work.

In order to have the best competition at each level you need to get away from established brackets. You need to use as much of the pool of teams at one time as you can to reduce the variance you have between teams. Larger pool means means more streamlined curve when placing teams into brackets which will in return place like teams more closely together than it does currently. Right now Brackets assign a teams competition, instead of the team itself determining the competition.

We need to reverse the order of things so that the teams placement becomes more fluid. Placement in a bracket has to be build on more factors than a teams levels and if they won last season. Their current situation has to be taken into account more.

The bracket structure is just a tool for organization instead of the determining factor that it is currently. By organizing your teams before you place them in brackets you eliminate the need for CPU teams at all. You will create closer parity between the teams.

while it could be a mess I'd love to see GLB adopt the college football system...since that's what it is. hundreds of hundreds of teams that have large turnover every season. Have an open schedule, give teams the ability to create conferences, have end of season bowl games, PLUS tournaments for varying caps- every season the best 8/16/32 teams from various caps (to replace WL, Pro, AAA, AA, minors 42, minors 34...on down) are invited to play in the end of season tournament.

Moar trophies + moar freedom = moar fun.

I realize there are alot of problems w/ this idea, but truly believe it's the best option and would just take some work coding/getting used to.

all teams human owned and more then 90% human players should be put in leagues together so all CPU teams will be in the same leagues.

Originally posted by BP
Ok D, here is your plan...you can thank me later via a large flex deposit into my account (I don't want a job, but thanks )

For everything above the Capped Leagues

Eliminate Oceania and One of the Europes

here is your new league set up

1 WL
6 Pro
12 AAA
24 AA

take the oceania and one europe teams and redistribute them. Teams that made the playoffs in those leagues in Pro go into pro in the other leagues, those that didn't get distributed into AAA. You make room in Pro in the 6 leagues by demoting non-playoff teams in order of record down to AAA. Then repeat those steps in AAA and down and all league will be filled up. 6 teams demote from WL each season from each region instead of 8 in this scenario.

AA is horrible right now, 24 leagues is probably perfect for how many teams/players you have.

Very simple solution. We'll have 6 great regions with great competition. Not 8 with waaay too many AA's and horrible competition below AAA.



For the capped leagues...a little tougher, but the level caps don't work. Even though SSB has effectively been killed, non-boosters with 8 old season lvl 38 players still ruin things for the boosters.

You have to decide how interested you are in keeping non-boosters around and if those profiles really bring you money in.

If they don't and you don't care about them

1) Leagues with date creation caps

if you do

2) Make boosting a requirement to enter non-casual capped leagues. How you would this is have a maximum level AND a minimum creation date for capped leagues that use a full AI setup. Make the casual leagues have no such rules. That way, casual players can play casually...serious players play seriously. You'd probably have to reduce the amount of regular capped leagues and increase the amount of casuals in this scenario



Just to qualify my plan, I currently own my own business...I did in gross transactions about 10 million dollars in 2008/2009 (no I didn't make that much..only a fraction, a small fraction, nobody ask me to buy them flex please ). I have no employees and do it all myself. I'm not some angry ass 16 year old with ideas, running businesses and putting together good solid plans is what I do. Take it for what it's worth.

I actually like this.

Originally posted by Bort
Originally posted by oldskool

college style!

smash all leagues. everybody does their own schedule...nothing new here, anybody who's interested in competitive GLB play already has to make their own schedules & hold their own playoffs, and anyone uninterested just won't bother scheduling; anybody short of 16 games goes into a pool & the games are randomly generated at that point.

Top however many go into a big tournament at the end.

Seems like a ladder system might work just as well? I wonder how many people would be able to find opponents? Some of the "less connected" types might feel left out.

I was going to post basically the same thing. I think most of us can agree that real life teams like Boise State struggle to schedule great teams, so I imagine it would not be any easier in GLB. Likely harder.

Perhaps a system wherein half of your games are based on an effective level/win loss formula, and half can be scheduled by the team owners?

edit: Also, a ladder system could be a problem because that many fewer teams would be able to win gold.jpg each season, and handing out individual awards would be significantly complicated.

Also, perhaps you could add a traveling trophy for each cap level? Highest effective level gets it to begin the season, and Tournaments auto-schedules them against any teams that opt in to the tournament in that cap. Next highest effective level gets first shot at them.

This could stir things up a little bit.

How many teams are there?

World League: [by Conference only]: 16 teams ... 8 Playoff Teams stay | 8 non-Playoff Teams demote; replaced from Pro's [32 Teams]

Pro Leagues: 4 Leagues [128 Teams]
+ Pro A: 2 from WL, 2 promote to WL | 6 playoff teams stay | 8 non-Playoff Teams demote; replaced from Triple-A [AA-AD]
+ Pro B: 2 from WL, 2 promote to WL | 6 playoff teams stay | 8 non-Playoff Teams demote; replaced from Triple-A [BA-BD]
+ Pro C: 2 from WL, 2 promote to WL | 6 playoff teams stay | 8 non-Playoff Teams demote; replaced from Triple-A [CA-CD]
+ Pro D: 2 from WL, 2 promote to WL | 6 playoff teams stay | 8 non-Playoff Teams demote; replaced from Triple-A [DA-DD]

AAA: 16 Leagues [AA-AD, BA-BD, CA-CD, DA-DD] [512 Teams]
+ Triple-A/DA: 2 from Pro D, 2 promote to Pro D | 6 playoff teams stay | 8 non-Playoff Teams demote to "Competitive" AA [DAB - DAE]; replaced from Double-A "Elite"
+ Triple-A/DB: 2 from Pro D, 2 promote to Pro D | 6 playoff teams stay | 8 non-Playoff Teams demote to "Competitive" AA [DBB - DBE]; replaced from Double-A "Elite"
+ Triple-A/DC: 2 from Pro D, 2 promote to Pro D | 6 playoff teams stay | 8 non-Playoff Teams demote to "Competitive" AA [DCB - DCE]; replaced from Double-A "Elite"
+ Triple-A/DD: 2 from Pro D, 2 promote to Pro D | 6 playoff teams stay | 8 non-Playoff Teams demote to "Competitive" AA [DDB - DDE]; replaced from Double-A "Elite"

AA: 80 Leagues [2560 Teams]
+ Double-A/DDA [Elite]: 8 playoff teams promote to Triple-A DD | 8 non-Playoff Teams stay | 8 teams promote from "Competitive" AA [DDB - DDE]
+ Double-A/DDB [Competitive]: 2 from Triple-A/DD, 2 promote to Double-A/DDA "Elite" | 6 playoff teams stay | 8 non-Playoff Teams demote to "Competitive" A [DCB - DCE]; replaced from Single-A "Elite"
+ Double-A/DDC [Competitive]: 2 from Triple-A/DD, 2 promote to Double-A/DDA "Elite" | 6 playoff teams stay | 8 non-Playoff Teams demote to "Competitive" A [DCB - DCE]; replaced from Single-A "Elite"
+ Double-A/DDD [Competitive]: 2 from Triple-A/DD, 2 promote to Double-A/DDA "Elite" | 6 playoff teams stay | 8 non-Playoff Teams demote to "Competitive" A [DCB - DCE]; replaced from Single-A "Elite"
+ Double-A/DDE [Competitive]: 2 from Triple-A/DD, 2 promote to Double-A/DDA "Elite" | 6 playoff teams stay | 8 non-Playoff Teams demote to "Competitive" A [DCB - DCE]; replaced from Single-A "Elite"

A: 400 Leagues [12800 Teams]
Same format as "AA" Leagues, except teams demote down to Single-A "Non-Competitive" which is also where new/reset teams start.

==

That's capacity for 16,000 teams. The 2 teams which promote are the Regular Season Conference Champ and the Playoff Conference Winner. The next best Regular Season record is used if both are the same team.

Originally posted by DigitalDaggers
How would you change it?

The goal being to keep the leagues as competitive as possible.


Fire those ideas out here.

Look at the first 4 seasons of GLB, the structure you had then, back when almost every game was competitive and you saw the same teams season after season so you would get to know the other owners and agents and it was more competitive with rag chewing and bs'ing!

It's rare that I find a team that i've ever played before now days. kinda sucks honestly. I think it's because you guys keep trying to move everything around.

A script that pulls Owner and GM information could be handy. Something that just pulls the starting date and trophies. Then give weight to each item and create some sort of team score baised on this information. It can be in the background like rivalry points. It would not need to be the be all end all solution but a good method for deciding which teams should be in a league together.

It might also help new owners to be placed together.