Warrior General Games

Originally posted by bhall43
I mean that sounds great that you want to police moves like that, but it just doesn't logically fit. Guy goes inactive and stops spending SP's. I am stuck with him? Don't like the guy I created rookie season but he is on a team now, I can't retire him because I am binded by contract?

Chemistry obviously is hated by most but it has its place. What we all can agree on though is that the way it currently works sucks for everyone involved.

Maybe a default increase of +5 chemistry gain per game, all off season additions start at 75 chemistry and after the season starts the player starts with 5 less chemistry each game into the season.


So a player starting with a team 10 games in would start at 25 chemistry and it would take him 15 games to reach 100 chem.

A player starting 5 games in would start at 50 chemistry and it would take him 10 games to reach full chem.

Originally posted by Parab00n
Maybe a default increase of +5 chemistry gain per game, all off season additions start at 75 chemistry and after the season starts the player starts with 5 less chemistry each game into the season.


So a player starting with a team 10 games in would start at 25 chemistry and it would take him 15 games to reach 100 chem.

A player starting 5 games in would start at 50 chemistry and it would take him 10 games to reach full chem.

First suggestion that sounds good...dont see any negatives about this at this point

Originally posted by TxSteve
Seems to me the simplest solution:

sign in offseason -- start with 100 chem

sign days 1-10 -- start at 50 and get 10 chem per game played

sign days 11-20 -- start at 0 and get 10 chem per game played

sign days 21-30 -- start at 0 and get 5 chem per game played



removes much of the sting. Encourages sticking with your roster. Discourages roster overhaul late in the season. Theoretically simple to add

I agree that seems pretty simple. Mostly what I don't understand currently about chemistry is why it is random increases? What is the point of that other than to piss people off?

Originally posted by bhall43
What is the point of that other than to piss people off?

Seems to me this is WGs main aim generally

Originally posted by Parab00n
Maybe a default increase of +5 chemistry gain per game, all off season additions start at 75 chemistry and after the season starts the player starts with 5 less chemistry each game into the season.


So a player starting with a team 10 games in would start at 25 chemistry and it would take him 15 games to reach 100 chem.

A player starting 5 games in would start at 50 chemistry and it would take him 10 games to reach full chem.

Ya I mean I would be pretty happy with just about any change to chemistry at this point that gets you from 50 to 100 quicker than now.

Even if you did something like linking missed chem to how many games have been played in the season I think it would be pretty good. Like we have played 1 game already and I signed this player he comes in at 90 chemistry. 2 games they come in at 80 chemistry. 10 games into the season the guy starts at 0 no exceptions. Takes him 10 games to build to 100 or something.

Right now with Run Defenders I am nearly a full season removed from rebuilding my roster to play the Stunners and what do I have to show for it? A lot of guys just now reaching the mid 80's in chemistry 14 games into a brand new season.

Originally posted by bhall43
I mean that sounds great that you want to police moves like that, but it just doesn't logically fit. Guy goes inactive and stops spending SP's. I am stuck with him?

That could be an exception. Can only cut inactive players midseason.

Originally posted by bhall43
Don't like the guy I created rookie season but he is on a team now, I can't retire him because I am binded by contract?


You don't like your guy you created? So what. Play your one season and retire. Wanting to retire midseason isn't something I have a lot of sympathy for.

Originally posted by drewd21
Seems to me this is WGs main aim generally

Seriously whoever came up with the idea of random chemistry gains should have their nuts smashed in a vice. It's fucking stupid.

Originally posted by Rob.
You don't like your guy you created? So what. Play your one season and retire. Wanting to retire midseason isn't something I have a lot of sympathy for.



Flex

Originally posted by Rob.
You don't like your guy you created? So what. Play your one season and retire. Wanting to retire midseason isn't something I have a lot of sympathy for.



You don't have sympathy for me doing that. That is understandable. But I have sympathy for people who just found this game, didn't realize they could drop their abilities below 5 to make a better player, and finally figured all that out by being on a team.

Originally posted by bhall43
You don't have sympathy for me doing that. That is understandable. But I have sympathy for people who just found this game, didn't realize they could drop their abilities below 5 to make a better player, and finally figured all that out by being on a team.

Agreed. This game needs to be far more hospitable to new players. There are no FAQ's, and nothing of real use for newer players is Stickied.

Originally posted by bhall43
You don't have sympathy for me doing that. That is understandable. But I have sympathy for people who just found this game, didn't realize they could drop their abilities below 5 to make a better player, and finally figured all that out by being on a team.

I suppose that makes sense. Even though a lot of new players end up getting stuck anyways.

New players are only going to make a Rookie player. Have all Rookie players start at 100 chem.

Fuck start everyone at 100 chem all the time.

I hate this damn mechanic so much I've geared my entire play-style around it.

Originally posted by TxSteve
As far as "new to vet" teams go. As Pro's in season 7 - the stunners went 31-1. Only loss was to #1 vet Hawaii Bulls. We beat at least a few other #1s that season and several top 10's.

Then in season 8 (our first at Vet) - we went 28-3 with wins over many top 10's and #1's -- and we finished at #3 overall.

It would be pretty difficult imo for a 1st year vet to hit #1 under old ELO rules...
But as the number of Vet teams seems to continue to decline - it could be possible

Yeah, except the ladder system doesn't take your win streak into account to give you your next matchups.

I've got one loss this season. Instead of giving me higher ranked teams to play to try and get more ELO, I'm getting matches against teams with lower ELO.

Current ranks of the ladder teams I've faced this season:

Game 1 - #37
Game 2 - #28
Game 3 - #25
Game 4 - #17 (Jersey Goons that I beat 129-0 because CPU? 0 and 14 this season and still ranked way ahead of me)
Game 5 - #38
Game 6 - #50
Game 7 - #46

I'm on a winning streak and the best team I've drawn in the ladder this season is probably Ground Assault, who isn't even in Vet.

Obviously Jersey Goons being ranked 12 points higher at 0-14 this season is messed up. The reason that they haven't fallen farther is because they continue to play high ELO teams for the most part, so their ELO doesn't drop as fast.

Whether it be by K value or by giving losing teams "easier and easier" matchups to make them drop faster, something should be done. I mean, those guys are just feeding Monroe right now.

Originally posted by Galithor
I don't mind elo for managing the rankings during a season. the problem is the Season-2-Season transfer of ranking value.

Even if your roster hasn't changed, you're still susceptible to buffs/nerfs from game changes each season.

My team is a good example. There's a significant amount of SP between Pro and Vet, we really addressed a lot of our weaknesses in the offseason.

Originally posted by Rob.
Which I think can be solved by readjusting the elo scores each offseason. Remove the large gaps that occur when a bunch of teams fold. Give teams a generic starting point.

For example:

#1 - 4000
#2 - 3900
#3 - 3850
#4 - 3800
#5 - 3750
etc.

Just smoothing the ELO curve out a bit would be best.

I don't think a generic starting place makes sense. Also I think that turnover, chemistry, and CPU players should have a negative effect on your position in the curve.

Originally posted by Time Trial
Just smoothing the ELO curve out a bit would be best.

I don't think a generic starting place makes sense. Also I think that turnover, chemistry, and CPU players should have a negative effect on your position in the curve.

My issue with fancy calculations that account for stuff like that is probably NGTH.

It's most likely much simpler to write a script to just update the database from 1 to n, giving all those teams X, x-y, x-(y*2), x-(y*3), etc like some others have mentioned.

Hell, even doing it by hand, we're talking about a single column on the team's statistics right? It shouldn't take more than half an hour of work every season to do it by hand. Or you spend a half an hour writing the script and forget about it every season.

I just don't think Corndog even gets to spend that much time on GLB2. He's probably tied up working on whatever new game they're coming up with, and gets a couple of days towards the end of each season to review GLB2 stuff.