Warrior General Games

I was just curious as this comes down to the heart and soul of constructing a structure where there will be good competition. Is it the LOL bars? EL? Average Player Value? Those are the only "measurables" we have to work with as we can't rate AIs and gameplanning.

My thinking is to take whichever metric above is the most representative of that teams true potential from above and then "handicap" it based on winning percentage from the previous 3 seasons. if a team is consistently going 12-4 or better, then they'll obviously be better at gameplanning, AI, signing better builds etc than a team with the same EL, lol bars, APV etc who can't "figure it out" and are consistently 4-12.

I think we all agree that a well run team with lower AVPs can beat one with a higher AVP, but it's not likely once the difference is greater than 50 AVP.

If it's determined that AVP (average player value) is the way to go then a potential scenario may look like this.

Team A-AVP of 1000 Last 3 seasons record of 36-12 (75% winning percentage)
Team B-AVP of 1000 Last 3 seasons record of 12-36 (25% winning percentage)

Ruger index
Team A-1000 + (.75x50)=1037.50
Team B-1000+(.25x50)=1012.50

Calculate this for all the teams. Then random test sim games until you find out how much of a gap between the Ruger index leads to games that aren't realistic. for instance, we may find a Ruger index of 15 usually results in games decided by less than 30 points where an index of 30 results in 60 point blowouts the majority of time.

Pick how close you want the games and then divide up the teams accordingly. It's a strict formula based system so it would be pretty easy to do. Teams without a handicap (new teams) could be placed in a "newbie league" sorted by strictly AVP.

To ensure the system doesn't keep "resetting", sell team ownership for 3 seasons at a time. This will decrease the turnover in the vet league to the point you'll have a pretty stable system. It eliminates the fly by nighters and will naturally contract the number of teams out there allowing for more dots to be avaIlable to the vet league.

Anyway, I'm sure this could use some tweaking, but that's just my rough thoughts.

I would say scoreboard is the best way to compare teams.

Originally posted by HaplosDog
I would say scoreboard is the best way to compare teams.

+1


LOLbars and team effective levels are worthless. Average player value is the only "decent" measuring tool, but even that must be taken with a huge grain of salt. There just isnt a good way to numerical compare teams.

To fairly compare teams you have to look at:
APV (good starting point.. all the game planning the world wont make up for poorly built dots)
Roster (just because they have good APV doesnt mean they arent skewing it with STOPs/P/K's or incomplete roster)
Past History (this is really only relevant at the Pro+ level... considering 0 cares lolminors)
Agents coordinating/building dots

You have to take into account league strength. We went 4-12 in the WL with a better team after going 14-2 (4-0) in OPL.

I always measure myself against other golfers by height. Does that work here too?

GO GCMM!!!

-WJ

Ronnie, if you were in WL, chances are your APV is going to be substantially higher than the typical team you'd be "sorted with". So you'd still be in WL or whatever top tier they called it. Remember, all the other teams of similar stature won't be too far off of you either. For instance, how many teams have an APV of over 1100? It's a small percentage compared to where most Pro teams will put up there where it's more around 1050.

Remember, the formula above weights the APV way more than record. The record really only helps separate out the teams of similar APV to decide which team should be on which side of the fence if there's any debate.

WJ-It's not the height of the golfer but the length of the driver...

Pugs> the rest

that was easy

i would say scouting which agents are involved in a team can give you a good idea of how good the team is before even looking at a roster or past records imo.

You actually think Bort or anyone else has the time to look at who are the agents for every team before they decide how to structure all of GLB let alone adjust it every season?

You guys have to think big picture. Maybe I wasn't clear, but this thread is a spinoff of all the proposed changes on how to contract/reorder GLB and what is the best way for a "system" to be put in place to try and "tighten up" the competition by being able to measure teams and then place them accordingly to hopefully generate a competitive dynamic.

When you have people GMing 30 teams, no way in hell you can use that as any sort of metric to judge how a team will perform the next season.

Originally posted by SLZmonster
i would say scouting which agents are involved in a team can give you a good idea of how good the team is before even looking at a roster or past records imo.

Originally posted by Ruger7mmmag
You actually think Bort or anyone else has the time to look at who are the agents for every team before they decide how to structure all of GLB let alone adjust it every season?

You guys have to think big picture. Maybe I wasn't clear, but this thread is a spinoff of all the proposed changes on how to contract/reorder GLB and what is the best way for a "system" to be put in place to try and "tighten up" the competition by being able to measure teams and then place them accordingly to hopefully generate a competitive dynamic.

When you have people GMing 30 teams, no way in hell you can use that as any sort of metric to judge how a team will perform the next season.

What he's trying to say is that you can tell how good a team is (or is going to be) based on the agents that are on the team. For example - http://goallineblitz.com/game/team.pl?team_id=5183 You can tell by the lolgm's that the team is nasty.

It's no secret, sometimes other guys are just better than you.

I agree bug, but I think the point of the thread is being missed. What MEASURABLE way is there these teams can be sorted to try and capture the most competitive results? It has to be measurable and use DATA that's readily available. Users aren't tangible, especially when so many have useless titles.

So far, all I see are no suggestions so we're stuck with sorting by age, EL, APV or possibly something like I proposed above. I'm by no means an GLB guru, so I was hoping there may be some creative thoughts that could actually be used that would yield a more competitive environment where every game was within 14 points...

Nibs rankings are pretty solid
http://goallineblitz.com/game/forum_thread.pl?thread_id=4529254

That's pretty cool. If you could mix in the APV, I think you'd have just what you needed.