Warrior General Games

Seed GLB Tournament by Global Ranking:

Why:

A tournament this big should be seeded to avoid stacking the best teams in one bracket. Doing this would generate more interest in the tournament and make it more prestigious in general.

Also, this change would also undoubtedly increase the number of ranked scrims in the postseason/preseason which would make global rankings less lol and make GLB more money by adding a feature that makes ranked scrims more attractive.

Implement immediately IMO

-1 I would agree and +1 this suggestion if there was a way to avoid people being able to manipulate the actual global rankings. right now a team can make their global ranking alot better simply by doing a bunch of ranked scrims. so the global ranking system is skewed towards who ever spends the most money on scrims. while I like the idea you are suggesting I just think that right now the global ranking system isn't a legit way to choose the top ranked team.

Scrims cost pennies, and if teams wanna spend a few more pennies to better position themselves for the GLB tournament, how is that gaining an advantage any more than boosting? No one forces you to do it but it might generate a little more cash for GLB. If anything, this suggestion will make the GLB rankings better.

Originally posted by T2
Scrims cost pennies, and if teams wanna spend a few more pennies to better position themselves for the GLB tournament, how is that gaining an advantage any more than boosting? No one forces you to do it but it might generate a little more cash for GLB. If anything, this suggestion will make the GLB rankings better.

well basically this idea would fall under the old rich get richer idealology. it really doesn't matter the cost of the scrim's. if by spending money it gives you a edge over someone that isn't able to spend the money. and you cannot compare boosting to this because boosting is basically a must to stay competitive on the game. where as this is basically just a suggestion about seeding of a tourney.

If the Global rankings were based solely off of the rankings of the teams your team faces. and not use the simple amount of games your team has played I would +1 this. but I just do not see how rewarding someone with a better seed. simply because that team spent more money on scrims as being fair.

+1

Originally posted by hatchman
well basically this idea would fall under the old rich get richer idealology.

Welcome to games on the internet. GLB is after all a business and a "For Profit" business, so the "rich" or paying customer should have an advantage in all aspects of the game.

Originally posted by hatchman
it really doesn't matter the cost of the scrim's. if by spending money it gives you a edge over someone that isn't able to spend the money. and you cannot compare boosting to this because boosting is basically a must to stay competitive on the game.

Wha? So spending money on boosting to get an advantage with "your dot", OK. But spending money on scrims to better "your team" ranking and therefore as suggested your teams chances in the GLB sponsored tournament , NOT OK. Got it, that makes perfect sense.

Originally posted by hatchman
where as this is basically just a suggestion about seeding of a tourney.

...by Global Ranking, which is weighted by the amount of games a team plays (that are ranked) and therefor favors people that spend money. And... rightfully so.

Originally posted by hatchman
If the Global rankings were based solely off of the rankings of the teams your team faces. and not use the simple amount of games your team has played I would +1 this. but I just do not see how rewarding someone with a better seed. simply because that team spent more money on scrims as being fair.

To be clear, you think the only factor in the Global Rankings is the amount of games played? Doesn't factor in who you played and/or what the result of that game was? What if I told you, you were wrong? Than would you change your mind? Or is it really the fact that people you pay to play get an advantage that earns your negative one?

Oh by the way, plus one from me.

Originally posted by hatchman
-1 I would agree and +1 this suggestion if there was a way to avoid people being able to manipulate the actual global rankings. right now a team can make their global ranking alot better simply by doing a bunch of ranked scrims. so the global ranking system is skewed towards who ever spends the most money on scrims. while I like the idea you are suggesting I just think that right now the global ranking system isn't a legit way to choose the top ranked team.

You're asking the wrong question, hatchman.

The question shouldn't be, "Can the suggested seeding-system be exploited?"

The question should be, "Is the suggested seeding-system better than the current randomized system?"

I say yes. There are undoubtedly more-accurate criteria than Global Ranking that could be used, but this is a cheap, quick, easy-to-implement metric that already exists in the game right now and could easily be used to seed GLB Tournies.

As a wise man once said, "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good." Seeding by Global Ranking is light-years better than the current system of random placements and is a step in the right direction.

+1
+8

+4
+5

+3
+6

+2
+7

(See what I did there? )

+1

I like it, definitely better than the current system.

Originally posted by BadgerPhil
Originally posted by hatchman

well basically this idea would fall under the old rich get richer idealology.

Welcome to games on the internet. GLB is after all a business and a "For Profit" business, so the "rich" or paying customer should have an advantage in all aspects of the game.

Originally posted by hatchman

it really doesn't matter the cost of the scrim's. if by spending money it gives you a edge over someone that isn't able to spend the money. and you cannot compare boosting to this because boosting is basically a must to stay competitive on the game.

Wha? So spending money on boosting to get an advantage with "your dot", OK. But spending money on scrims to better "your team" ranking and therefore as suggested your teams chances in the GLB sponsored tournament , NOT OK. Got it, that makes perfect sense.

Originally posted by hatchman

where as this is basically just a suggestion about seeding of a tourney.

...by Global Ranking, which is weighted by the amount of games a team plays (that are ranked) and therefor favors people that spend money. And... rightfully so.

Originally posted by hatchman

If the Global rankings were based solely off of the rankings of the teams your team faces. and not use the simple amount of games your team has played I would +1 this. but I just do not see how rewarding someone with a better seed. simply because that team spent more money on scrims as being fair.

To be clear, you think the only factor in the Global Rankings is the amount of games played? Doesn't factor in who you played and/or what the result of that game was? What if I told you, you were wrong? Than would you change your mind? Or is it really the fact that people you pay to play get an advantage that earns your negative one?

Oh by the way, plus one from me.



First you need to stop thinking you know my thoughts and that you have a grasp on my knowledge of the game. because you really haven't understood a damn thing I have tried to say.

for example there is not a damn way you can compare boosting to using the global ranking system to rank tourney's. boosting has to be done by everyone to field competitive teams. the scrimmages actually weighing in on the seeding isn't a necessity. so trying to use the 2 as a comparison is really reaching.

secondly I fully understand that ranked scrims and also the amount of scrims a team plays is weighted into the global ranking system. so for example we will use T2's Rubber Duckies team that I am a GM on by the way. and we will say I have a pretend Pro team in this example. we all know T2's duckies team plays anyone and everyone in ranked scrimmages. they face some of the best teams in GLB but they lose some of those games against top teams. well if my team only scrimmages teams I can beat and I scrim those teams a ton of times. then my team could have a better global ranking than T2's simply because I spent more money to win ranked scrimmages against shitty team's. where as T2's team took on anyone that wanted to scrim.

the whole damn gist of this is that I could theoretically have a crappier team than T2's and just because I spent more money scrimmaging teams I knew I could beat. I could cheat T2's team out of a #`1 seed.

so I will say the Global rankings system would be a better way to seed the tourney than what we have currently. but by using the global ranking system you are setting yourselves up for some team to game that system and basically screw a more deserving team out of the better seeding.

It doesn't matter how you seed, the winner will be the team that is most capable. As for global ranks, those are silly, just another chat item and no more.

Proverbial building of a house upon the sand imo.

Only thing that's really needed is to stop giving teams full of CPUs first round byes.

The Global Ranking doesn't mean anything at the time the seeding is done. No one has played any regular season games yet and a lot of teams haven't had a ranked scrim.

Besides... aren't they seeding by team average SP value? That seems like a better system than seeding by either last season's results or by the results of a few scrims.

Originally posted by Time Trial
Besides... aren't they seeding by team average SP value? That seems like a better system than seeding by either last season's results or by the results of a few scrims.

Pretty sure the current "seeding" isn't seeding at all, just a random draw.