Warrior General Games

The Seasoned team that I own played Vs 5, that's F.I.V.E., _5_ advanced level CPU teams this season during ladder games. Teams that were whole tiers above it i.e. Journeyman CPU teams Vs my Seasoned team. Each of those teams players were 5 whole mini levels above our players. What's that an extra 10,000 bonus SP to each of the cpu team players? Fair? At all fair?

Having a system where the agony of defeat is almost guaranteed, makes me less inclined to remain an owner long term. If I can't entertain my players with the joy of victory Vs "easy" cpu teams, I start to hear the X Box calling... I play in a social game to share joy, not to force my players to have impossible games they are guaranteed to have dreadful stats in. My guys would have had a winning season if not for these games anchoring us below .500.

If there must be feeder teams, it should be from equal or lesser cpu teams, not by making human owned teams, the teams that people pay cash for, into feeders for CPU teams.

This has been a complaint for a long time... generally we suffer through a few middling tiers due to a lack of teams until you get to Vet where the sim really really shines.

Also, there is some satisfaction when you finally figure out how to beat those teams that are a tier or two above you, trust me.

Seasoned can be the worst. In Rookie and Sophomore, teams are protected (ie, they only play in-tier games). After Soph, the gloves are off and teams will be thrown into the deep end against teams +/- 20 rank of their current position who aren't in their leaugue. This system worked really well when there were 5 or 6 teams in the Seasoned tier. Now, though, it feels broken. For example, based on current rank, New York Nosferatu (92) could face the following teams:

San Jose Pit Bulls (110) - Week 6
Dakota Dragons (73) - Week 1
Canton Crusaders (97) - Week 5
Tennessee Vols (74) - Week 3

There is another scheduling rule...you can't play the same team twice until playoff time. Based on today's rankings, you have no teams available in your tier to play. By midseason your available pool was probably 6-8 teams and you had probably played over 2/3 of them. That's part of the reason you have to play up a tier.

It sucks...no doubt. If Journeyman you will likely be the beneficiary of Seasoned teams playing up but will likely play some Pro teams as well. Unless we get more teams in the game, the problem won't get significantly better.

Combining 2 tiers would help this problem tremendously.

Originally posted by Galactic Empire
Combining 2 tiers would help this problem tremendously.

DD said he was gonna mention doing this to Bort/C-Dog, so hopefully that will finally happen

Perhaps using Development League CPU teams may be a better solution. Have them on the ladder game schedule of teams from the leagues with human teams. Whatever the original intent of D leagues, it's good to consider what is the practical result of current policy.

Telling a player who is putting down cash, you know in a couple seasons you're gonna have a lot of fun, does not seem the best policy for a 50 day season game, especially if it is so open to variations.

Smart owners will win sooner, but even not so smart ones should have fun if they support the game with cash.

Originally posted by Coach Alan
Having a system where the agony of defeat is almost guaranteed

Not entirely sure how true this is? Looking through your schedule, here's your games against CPU teams

Houston Blaze L 10-14
@San Jose Pit Bulls W 35-17
Albuquerque Wolverines W 21-14
San Francisco Samurai W 31-21
Tampa Massacre W 41-10

You lost one game by one score against a CPU team in the ladder?

Here's some of the Higher tier teams we faced this season:

L E G I O N
Annapolis Mariners
Great Lake Raiders
Houston Wasps


Originally posted by Corndog
Not entirely sure how true this is? Looking through your schedule, here's your games against CPU teams

Houston Blaze L 10-14
@San Jose Pit Bulls W 35-17
Albuquerque Wolverines W 21-14
San Francisco Samurai W 31-21
Tampa Massacre W 41-10

You lost one game by one score against a CPU team in the ladder?

Originally posted by Corndog
Not entirely sure how true this is? Looking through your schedule, here's your games against CPU teams

Houston Blaze L 10-14
@San Jose Pit Bulls W 35-17
Albuquerque Wolverines W 21-14
San Francisco Samurai W 31-21
Tampa Massacre W 41-10

You lost one game by one score against a CPU team in the ladder?

This post is about how bad it is to play against such higher ranked tiers. Go check WorldWide Mafia Insurance. One of the Top Teams in the Tier, look what happened to us for a quarter of the season. How about Glasgow Barbarians, Alaskan Assasins, and others as well as Previous Seasons team owners who get to spend at least a quarter of there season being so outmatched that it's a huge waste of time and MORALE! Everytime I watched my team get destroyed, showing that it's not even competition it made me want to quit playing. I'm sure I'm not the first to feel that way and won't be the last. And I guarentee you've lost agents because they lost interest while going through that. I was extremely close to it!

A response for these Corndog?

http://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/forum/thread/5272526

This is a BETA, thus should realize that your customers ALL have been letting you guys know that the Ladder system is outdated and should be adjusted. But all everyone hears back is excuses.

Originally posted by Coach Alan
Here's some of the Higher tier teams we faced this season:

L E G I O N
Annapolis Mariners
Great Lake Raiders
Houston Wasps

@L E G I O N L 3-42
@Great Lakes Raiders L 16-41
Annapolis Mariners L 7-14
Houston Wasps L 0-14

And two of those four games were lost by two scores or less. And those are caused moreso by the early season ladder swings than anything else, which was an expected side effect of seasonal ladder resets

Originally posted by JokersChaos
This is a BETA, thus should realize that your customers ALL have been letting you guys know that the Ladder system is outdated and should be adjusted. But all everyone hears back is excuses.

Mostly what I see is people losing winnable games, then blaming the system for being unfair.

I'll readily admit that early season ladder games can be pretty bonkers, but that was a side effect of the seasonal reset that many customers requested. I do agree that in an ideal world, every match in a competitive game would be completely fair and balanced and a hard fought victory for both sides, it's not a very practical goal.

The alternative I guess would be playing the same five teams five times a season, but people also weren't happy when that was happening.

So could you weigh the very first ladder matchups based on last year's end result to help ease things in? Would that just produce a near-copy result to the non-reset?

Originally posted by Corndog
Mostly what I see is people losing winnable games, then blaming the system for being unfair.

I'll readily admit that early season ladder games can be pretty bonkers, but that was a side effect of the seasonal reset that many customers requested. I do agree that in an ideal world, every match in a competitive game would be completely fair and balanced and a hard fought victory for both sides, it's not a very practical goal.

The alternative I guess would be playing the same five teams five times a season, but people also weren't happy when that was happening.

Combining 2 tiers would help. Also make it so you can't play a team 2 tiers ahead of you.