Warrior General Games

I think my brain just exploded......

I like the idea overall, but:

Originally posted by mandyross
So what would happen when you start a team with all your internet buddies and then class-up at different rates due to factors such as a position dependent # of major/minor attributes? Also - #4-Player Age, #5-# of boosts available - why are these necessary - Can you regress down classes with age if you fuck the build up and hence have to leave a capped team? How about "deliberately" "fucking up" a build to dominate lower league teams who are going through the standard build procedures? You might think this formula is complicated, but it only appears to be because it is so mangled. This seems unworkable, and a train crash waiting to happen. I sincerely hope Bort is further down the line than this in his thought process.

If this really is "epic", at least use the player builder to start clarifying a few quantitative restrictions on the formula.

I think there are a couple of legitimate points in this jumbled response ...

1) BREAKING UP EXISTING TEAMS

I've started a couple of teams just with agents I have either met in this game or knew before. I don't think it would be very popular if, five seasons down the road, someone tries to break up this team because some players have progressed at different rates than others. Any imbalance in the formulas, or different build strategies (yes, there IS more than one) could cause this to happen unless safeguards are put in place.

2) GAMING THE SYSTEM

It's going to happen, no matter what you do to try to stop it, because some people are just douchebags like that. I think this limits that ability some, which is good, but having too strict rules on classifications will make gaming the system a little easier.

+1

This is from a suggestion I made using a specific formula and an example using 320 teams.

That is what I am trying to do. Instead of doing anything too crazy that would involve a lot of human judgement, I am instead trying to come up with a formula that will act as a "composite" to make future leagues possible and easy for Bort to do.

The basis for the cap structure is no longer level based, but age based. This key change immediately eliminates a lot of the disparity between SSB teams and regular teams, since teams will be facing those of the same age, not the same level.

As of right now, this composite takes into account three key parts of any team:
1. Median Level
2. Median Age (in days)
3. Win Percentage

When leagues are made for the Day 120 Cap, players from level 13-24 will be all in the same cap, all anywhere from 80-160 days old (if not more). Immediately, this formula would set them into leagues that would best give a good level of competition:

Composite = (Level/7 + Age/40 + Win%)/3

Here is an example of the composite in action using the 120 Day Cap and random team data: http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0Am4gexSADI2_dHdjZkw4NXZRbDhzMGQ4Z0dyRUd3Rmc&hl=en

My question is, anyone see how I can improve it or make it more plausible?

I like this idea. It seems to me like this would without a doubt put an end to SUPER slow building? Or at least make it less beneficial?

Wow, this involves work, and them really looking at the teams, and players on the teams. Will never happen.

It's a good idea and all, but it will never ever happen.

I was just thinking about a structure like this, but it was a bit simpler.

Instead of a player being Class A-Z just use a simple number. Call it Performance Level (PL), if you want. Do away with levels as they are now, but still follow the 1000XP model for skill points.

PL = (Sum of Base Attributes) + (Unused SP's) + (SP's invested into SA's) + (VA attribute bonuses) - (Decline Penalties)

The league caps are then set based on PL instead of experience level. There could be no minimums at the Minors levels, and then have the AA minimum be the equivalent of say four current levels below the cap of the top Minor leagues. Set AAA and Pro minimums in the same way.

Not only would this put more players with similar skill levels together, it would give old guys places to go as they decline.

Originally posted by Bort
The problems relate to value of VA's and stored SP's.

I can't help with the VA issue, but it seems to me that the stored SPs could be valued as if they were applied across the board in the manner the build has already included (just a strict mathmatical calculation of the build as it currently existed at that moment).

Originally posted by Mr Sinister
Wow, this involves work, and them really looking at the teams, and players on the teams. Will never happen.

It's a good idea and all, but it will never ever happen.

No, you just make it an automated calculation--even if (as Bort alluded to) for mere informational purposes.

There is a GM script that does this now. Player Build Summary. It gives you a # rating. THe higher the # the better the build is the idea. It calculates how much SP your current attribute pt levels are worth. Or in other words, how much SP it would take to gain your current attribute pt levels with SP only. It includes attribute pt levels gained from VAs and EQ as well. It basically gauges what is known as the "SP value" of the player at the given level. You can use it to compare players. Say compare a great lvl 48 build vs a so-so lvl 60 build to see which one is better. Something like this would be nice to have implemented.

Originally posted by mwindle
There is a GM script that does this now. Player Build Summary. It gives you a # rating. THe higher the # the better the build is the idea. It calculates how much SP your current attribute pt levels are worth. Or in other words, how much SP it would take to gain your current attribute pt levels with SP only. It includes attribute pt levels gained from VAs and EQ as well. It basically gauges what is known as the "SP value" of the player at the given level. You can use it to compare players. Say compare a great lvl 48 build vs a so-so lvl 60 build to see which one is better. Something like this would be nice to have implemented.

This person is talking of a new cap system, not a player comparison maker.

P.S. +1

P.S.S. Nothing in Uncapped should have a cap, imo.

Originally posted by fightomega
This person is talking of a new cap system, not a player comparison maker.

P.S. +1

P.S.S. Nothing in Uncapped should have a cap, imo.

I'm more referring to the comments about just having a "rating" system for general use. I agree about uncapped having no caps.

Been giving this some thought. Why not just determine Leagues by Skill points instead of player levels. Everything breaks down to skill points. Add them up, create a range for each league and it doesn't matter if a player is slow build, super slow build, a booster, non-booster or even if a team is made up of sandbagged players.

Always about classism...

I LIKE THIS IDEA