Warrior General Games

Wolverine League, Beta Division

Both Chicago Bruins and Galactic Heroes are 9-4.

We are 1-1 in H2H games. I have read that the tiebreaker after that is PF-PA.

Chicago Bruins, 238-112 = 116
Galactic Heroes, 165-110 = 55

So we, Chicago, should be first in that division.

Also, if it matters (which it should for a tiebreaker), we are ranked #17 and Heroes are #68 atm.

Originally posted by -Phaytle-
We are 1-1 in H2H games. I have read that the tiebreaker after that is PF-PA.

Chicago Bruins, 238-112 = 116
Galactic Heroes, 165-110 = 55

I don't know where you read that, but it's wrong. Bort has said it's the same as GLB1 tiebreakers, which means it's points against, then points for.

Galactic Heroes has 110 points against, which is better than the Bruins 112, so the Heroes are ahead.

Damn, that is junk. Is it now obvious which is the better team?

Would it not be better in every situation to either use NFL tiebreakers or division record, and then ladder rank? Even PF-PA makes more sense.

Or are we just going with what has already been used even though it is blatantly flawed... wait why did I even ask? :/

Originally posted by NiborRis
I don't know where you read that, but it's wrong. Bort has said it's the same as GLB1 tiebreakers, which means it's points against, then points for.

Galactic Heroes has 110 points against, which is better than the Bruins 112, so the Heroes are ahead.



Thanks btw. I couldn't find anything official on the playoff seeding.

Meh it's not really that flawed. I do agree that division record should play into division winning tho after overall record.

Originally posted by bhall43
Meh it's not really that flawed. I do agree that division record should play into division winning tho after overall record.

I just think now that there are fewer teams going to the playoffs, the right teams need to actually be chosen. We don't have a bunch of teams in the playoffs to allow the playoffs to decide which teams are good and should be there or not. We've only got 4. And the disparity in quality from those two teams is ridiculously larger than the 2 points difference in points given up. So using this situation as a prime example, it IS really that flawed and should not be used for GLB2. There are a handful of other, easily implementable, much better options. If we keep it this way, then the first week of the playoffs could have some lolareyouserious matchups for the #1 and 2 seeds, while leaving actual championship contenders without a shot.

We've beaten the #1 and #3 seed in our league, are over 40 spots ahead in ladder over #3 seed, forget #4.
#1 points scored, #1 rushing, #1 pass def, #1 rush def, yet we are on the outside looking in because of a very, very, very poor tiebreaker which we are behind in by 2 points.

I have confidence we'll overcome that deficit in the last game, but it shouldn't even come to this.

Originally posted by -Phaytle-
Thanks btw. I couldn't find anything official on the playoff seeding.

PF-PA was my post as to how it 'should' be determined, but not how it in fact is determined.

Originally posted by Time Trial
PF-PA was my post as to how it 'should' be determined, but not how it in fact is determined.

Yeah, I remember reading that now. I was only able to pull the PF-PA part out of my head atm. I couldn't remember anything from an admin on tiebreakers or whatnot, thanks.

Division record would be fine - but it wouldn't change anything in your case, since both teams have the same 3-2 division record.

Ladder rank I would prefer NOT to be part of the tiebreaker. If teams are tied with league record and H2H the elo rating is going to mostly be results of the ladder games, which are random opponents and completely unbalanced strength of schedule. Keep the league playoffs to league results. I could be talked into using ladder rank as the *last* tiebreak before going to coin flip, but not ahead of anything else.

NFL tiebreakers would be pretty convoluted for divisional ties. NFL has to deal with unbalanced schedules, which we don't have, so some of the tiebreakers don't make sense. Also, we don't have conferences, just divisions. I'm not convinced that using combined ranking of points scored and points allowed makes any more sense than just using points allowed. The removal of point for from the initial tiebreaker, including using PF-PA, was to throw out the blowouts over CPU teams, especially if a team went CPU mid-season. That isn't relevant this season, it might be relevant in future seasons in GLB2.

Bottom line, for me, it would be a nice improvement to add divisional record to the tiebreaker for divisional champion.

Originally posted by NiborRis
Division record would be fine - but it wouldn't change anything in your case, since both teams have the same 3-2 division record.

Ladder rank I would prefer NOT to be part of the tiebreaker. If teams are tied with league record and H2H the elo rating is going to mostly be results of the ladder games, which are random opponents and completely unbalanced strength of schedule. Keep the league playoffs to league results. I could be talked into using ladder rank as the *last* tiebreak before going to coin flip, but not ahead of anything else.

NFL tiebreakers would be pretty convoluted for divisional ties. NFL has to deal with unbalanced schedules, which we don't have, so some of the tiebreakers don't make sense. Also, we don't have conferences, just divisions. I'm not convinced that using combined ranking of points scored and points allowed makes any more sense than just using points allowed. The removal of point for from the initial tiebreaker, including using PF-PA, was to throw out the blowouts over CPU teams, especially if a team went CPU mid-season. That isn't relevant this season, it might be relevant in future seasons in GLB2.

Bottom line, for me, it would be a nice improvement to add divisional record to the tiebreaker for divisional champion.

The thing is, elite teams in GLB2 vs. CPU teams in GLB2 don't lead to the 255-0 blowouts. The most I have seen on the test server was around 80 points, but there could have been other games that I didn't see.

Originally posted by Time Trial
The thing is, elite teams in GLB2 vs. CPU teams in GLB2 don't lead to the 255-0 blowouts. The most I have seen on the test server was around 80 points, but there could have been other games that I didn't see.

255-0 was the reason GLB2 had to go to PA-PF for tiebreakers. GLB2 seems to be much more even so I could understand flipping it. I do agree, adding divisional record would be nice in the case of a tie for division winner. I don't think it belongs in the wild card tie-breaker, though.

Adding ladder record or ranking would be absolutely relevant in a tiebreaker. The NFL kind of does this when creating schedules by attempting to match teams with similar records from last year. For example, a team plays it's division twice, and an entire division from another conference, and then if they were 2nd best team from their division, they would be matched with the 2nd best team from another division. The benefit of using ladder games is the fact that it is always a similar level of competition. If you can consistently beat even opponents better than someone you are tied with in a division where you can both beat up on everyone in your league, then hey, you've got to hand it to the guy that can beat his peers more often than the other guy - in their league or not (as a tiebreaker).

But anyways, if this situation doesn't make it apparent that the current tiebreaker settings are just plain bad then it is worthless to keep on communicating... anything... ever again

As the owner of the Galactic Heroes, I have no problem with how the tie-breaker is currently working.

Originally posted by briansimoneau
As the owner of the Galactic Heroes, I have no problem with how the tie-breaker is currently working.

lol, I bet

Originally posted by Time Trial
The thing is, elite teams in GLB2 vs. CPU teams in GLB2 don't lead to the 255-0 blowouts. The most I have seen on the test server was around 80 points, but there could have been other games that I didn't see.

255-0, 80-0...still problematic.