Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Dub J
Only thing that's really needed is to stop giving teams full of CPUs first round byes.

This would be acceptable as well.

+1.

T2 makes sense sometimes......

+1

Originally posted by hatchman
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.

Bolded part is all that matters. Novus hit the nail on the head. Waiting for the perfect solution, while shoving better than the current solutions off the table is a mistake. If you're going -1, but say it's better than current system, then make a better suggestion.

Also, relax, I do not and I am not trying to know your thoughts or belittle your knowledge of all things GLB. LOL

I do however understand what you are saying, I simply don't agree with your stance.

Also, boosting to improve your dot is comparable to scheduling more scrims to improve your team and therefor your Global Ranking. As you are spending flex to improve something you are using in this game.

If your argument is that how Global Ranking is calculated needs to be adjusted, with less weight giving to the amount of sims and more to the quality of the opponent, than you'd have a point. Especially if GR is used to rank teams for the GLB tournament as suggested in this suggestion. If your argument is that Ranked Sims, or more accurately the number of Ranked Sims, shouldn't play a role in the calculation of GR at all than you wrong (in my opinion).

Though, your big statement was "The rich get richer". Which my response to that is, damn straight. If I put more flex toward my dot or my team, I should see an advantage over those that don't. Now somebody with great knowledge of how GLB works might make up some, if not all, of that gap. But there should still be a gap to be made up.

Originally posted by BadgerPhil
Bolded part is all that matters. Novus hit the nail on the head. Waiting for the perfect solution, while shoving better than the current solutions off the table is a mistake. If you're going -1, but say it's better than current system, then make a better suggestion.

Also, relax, I do not and I am not trying to know your thoughts or belittle your knowledge of all things GLB. LOL

I do however understand what you are saying, I simply don't agree with your stance.

Also, boosting to improve your dot is comparable to scheduling more scrims to improve your team and therefor your Global Ranking. As you are spending flex to improve something you are using in this game.

If your argument is that how Global Ranking is calculated needs to be adjusted, with less weight giving to the amount of sims and more to the quality of the opponent, than you'd have a point. Especially if GR is used to rank teams for the GLB tournament as suggested in this suggestion. If your argument is that Ranked Sims, or more accurately the number of Ranked Sims, shouldn't play a role in the calculation of GR at all than you wrong (in my opinion).

Though, your big statement was "The rich get richer". Which my response to that is, damn straight. If I put more flex toward my dot or my team, I should see an advantage over those that don't. Now somebody with great knowledge of how GLB works might make up some, if not all, of that gap. But there should still be a gap to be made up.





The rich get richer statement I made was in reference to what everyone used to say in here relating to the non boost stuff. Maybe you didn't frequent suggestions back then but it was sort of a running joke. So I can understand how my statement there wasz misunderstood. My stance on this is that it is a decent suggestion. But it allows for a major exploit that can be used. If the global ranking weighed the strength of the opponents in the scrimmages more then it would help. But as of right now just having a large number of ranked scrimmages against shitty teams. Will build a teams global ranking up. So the possibility someone would exploit that is tremendous. But the suggestion is better than the random crap we have now.

Lol at major exploit. ^

This is the GLB tournament we're talking about here, and there would no change to the current ranking system. Now, please remove your tin foil hat and thank you for all the bumps.

Originally posted by hatchman
The rich get richer statement I made was in reference to what everyone used to say in here relating to the non boost stuff. Maybe you didn't frequent suggestions back then but it was sort of a running joke. So I can understand how my statement there wasz misunderstood. My stance on this is that it is a decent suggestion. But it allows for a major exploit that can be used. If the global ranking weighed the strength of the opponents in the scrimmages more then it would help. But as of right now just having a large number of ranked scrimmages against shitty teams. Will build a teams global ranking up. So the possibility someone would exploit that is tremendous. But the suggestion is better than the random crap we have now.

So the suggestion has merit and is better than the current system, so there for the interim I am putting you down for a +1. Whether you like it or not.

Making this way too complicated. I already told you nubs how to fix this shit. Anything else is just overkill.

use the previous seasons rankings

Originally posted by Dub J
Making this way too complicated. I already told you nubs how to fix this shit. Anything else is just overkill.



Thanks for bringing up the sparkler bomb accident, jerk.

Originally posted by T2
Lol at major exploit. ^

This is the GLB tournament we're talking about here, and there would no change to the current ranking system. Now, please remove your tin foil hat and thank you for all the bumps.

well excuse me my friend for trying to show how the suggestion could be exploited to a extent. I thought that was what suggestions was for. but I will remove my tin foil hat and make sure from now on that I only +1 what the great and powerful OZ I mean T2 says.

-1

Originally posted by T2
Lol at major exploit. ^

This is the GLB tournament we're talking about here, and there would no change to the current ranking system. Now, please remove your tin foil hat and thank you for all the bumps.

Eh, an overkill response to an overkill concern, tbh.

I wouldn't classify this as a "major exploit," but it could be exploited... you certainly would see some teams scheduling easy scrims just to inflate their ranking and get a better seed in the GLB tourney. I think if there's one thing we've all learned from GLB, it's this: if something can exploited, it will be exploited.

But I don't think it would be anywhere near as widespread as hatchman is worried about... scrims cost Flex, and while some teams would be willing to spend Flex to get an easier road in the GLB tourney, most teams wouldn't bother. And for the teams that do use the exploit, so what? If you schedule some scrims to inflate your Global Ranking, what's that gonna do, take you from #8 to #4 in a 64-team field? So instead of your first round opponent being the #57 seed, now it'll be the #61 seed? If that's what you want to spend your Flex on, y'know what? Go right ahead, man. In the immortal words of Mackelmore, "That's fifty dollars for a t-shirt!"

So, my +1 remains. The benefits far outweigh the potential for exploitation.

Originally posted by Novus
Originally posted by T2

Lol at major exploit. ^

This is the GLB tournament we're talking about here, and there would no change to the current ranking system. Now, please remove your tin foil hat and thank you for all the bumps.

Eh, an overkill response to an overkill concern, tbh.

I wouldn't classify this as a "major exploit," but it could be exploited... you certainly would see some teams scheduling easy scrims just to inflate their ranking and get a better seed in the GLB tourney. I think if there's one thing we've all learned from GLB, it's this: if something can exploited, it will be exploited.

But I don't think it would be anywhere near as widespread as hatchman is worried about... scrims cost Flex, and while some teams would be willing to spend Flex to get an easier road in the GLB tourney, most teams wouldn't bother. And for the teams that do use the exploit, so what? If you schedule some scrims to inflate your Global Ranking, what's that gonna do, take you from #8 to #4 in a 64-team field? So instead of your first round opponent being the #57 seed, now it'll be the #61 seed? If that's what you want to spend your Flex on, y'know what? Go right ahead, man. In the immortal words of Mackelmore, "That's fifty dollars for a t-shirt!"

So, my +1 remains. The benefits far outweigh the potential for exploitation.

I am not disagreeing with you at all. but as a group shouldn't we want anything that is possibly implemented to be fixed where there are no possible exploits. I argued the potential of the exploit more so for showing all aspects of the suggestion. not really because I was worried about the exploit in general.

Any team that needs to find an exploit in order to improve their seeding has a ~0% chance of winning anyway, mainly thanks to my suggestion which will ensure they don't find a soft half of a bracket.

The only reason GLB rankings can be "exploited" at all is because some teams just don't care about it. This suggestion would give another reason for some of those teams to change their minds and at least turn them on.


Also, another point that seems to be lost on the exploit argument is that you don't have to pay for a ranked scrim if you are challenged. You could play for free.

The only thing exploitable IMO is opening ranked scrims, improving your ranking as much as you could expect and then turning them off once you achieve your result. I still think that would be a minor problem at worst though. If more teams are running ranked scrims, it would become easier for stagnant teams to be passed. The more teams playing ranked scrims, the more the ranking system will be accurate, and therefore my suggestion not only improves the tournament experience by making the brackets fair, it also improves the GLB ranking integrity and makes GLB more money in the process.

For the folks that don't care about seeding for the GLB tournament, nothing changes. If they enter with a low seed because they choose to keep scrims private or shut off, they'll probably have zero cares about it.

Lastly, this suggestion gives a little more to do during the long offseason for those who feel it's too long. Having some games that can mean something gets the juices flowing and more forum fodder. Those who like having the extended break really aren't losing much; they can still take their break if they choose.