Warrior General Games

Need to be more balanced,just to many games 100 points apart.

And how would you accomplish making teams try harder? Force people to build better players? Chain them to a desk and force them to game plan? Parity is achieved when people who are at the same skill level/build quality/etc play each other. 100-0 games happen when two teams face each other with unequal ability play.

Maybe if you make a suggestion for how to fix things, there can be some +/- to it. As this stands now there's nothing here but a statement.

Originally posted by THE 4 - 3
Need to be more balanced,just to many games 100 points apart.

+1

make all team CPU teams. Remove the human factor and you can get parity easily.

more parity means that builds and AI matter less.

If the goal is to be more like real life football, then you could force a team that is winning in a blowout to reduce play intensity. The game would likely still be a blowout, but the score might be more realistic. I don't think there is anything like that in the sim right now.

It's a PvP game. Never going to have parity in the sense some people want without making this game a piece of shit.

Originally posted by spartan822
If the goal is to be more like real life football, then you could force a team that is winning in a blowout to reduce play intensity. The game would likely still be a blowout, but the score might be more realistic. I don't think there is anything like that in the sim right now.

We used to have that and it was horrible.

Originally posted by All American Dude
We used to have that and it was horrible.

Actually we do still have it, just doesn't kick in till 200 because people were complaining about teams coming back after going down 70 points (might have been before they fixed the bug where CPU's got supersized by blowouts)

Originally posted by THE 4 - 3
Need to be more balanced,just to many games 100 points apart.

This is part of the reason I quit buying flex. I stay around because I enjoy the game but why pay to see my team crush the competition because the teams never really find a league with a level playing field until you start getting into the top tiers of the leagues. Its stupid that we beat most every team in our league with ease and scored more than 50-80 points on some of them while we have had only 1 TD scored on us all season.

Originally posted by Alky
This is part of the reason I quit buying flex. I stay around because I enjoy the game but why pay to see my team crush the competition because the teams never really find a league with a level playing field until you start getting into the top tiers of the leagues. Its stupid that we beat most every team in our league with ease and scored more than 50-80 points on some of them while we have had only 1 TD scored on us all season.

I wouldnt be happy if I was playing a real sport and beat a team full of little girls so it doesnt make us happy to beat teams that have no chance against us.

We should have parties

Originally posted by alindyl
Actually we do still have it, just doesn't kick in till 200 because people were complaining about teams coming back after going down 70 points (might have been before they fixed the bug where CPU's got supersized by blowouts)

As you mentioned, it was toned down enough to where no one notices it any longer. The reason I didn't like it wasn't because teams were coming back. I didn't like the fact superior dots played like absolute shit after the 70 point threshold.

Yeah there was that too, good point. Was affecting player stats in games. I think some people even purposely had offenses that would screw around when they got near the blowout threshold so their play wouldn't degrade and could keep up the player stats.

Parity per se is hard to do because you do not want teams being boosted to the point of being contenders.

100 point games can be forestalled, however, in a few ways (all of which I have posted as suggestions before):

Performance Brakes. The reality is that when a team is steam rolling an opponent, the players do not play as hard. There is no need for them to risk injury in a sure win, nor do they have the competitive fire stoked as high when up by four TDs, and being professionals they may feel some need to not run the score on their comrades on the other club. So If a team is winning by more than 28 points, begin to reduce the performance of the winning team by 1% for every touch down over 21 in the score differential. So when a team score is 28-34 more than its opponent's, the winning teams attributes and skills would be lowered by 1%. 35 to 41 by 2%, 42 to 48 by 3%, 49 to 55 by 4%, 56 to 62 by 5% etc etc. This way the more of a laugher it is the more the winning team takes its foot off the gas.

Playing Up/Down to the Opposition: Its a known phenomena that good teams will play down to the opposition and that underdogs sometimes will have a chip on their shoulders and play up to a superior team, creating the Any Given Sunday effect. If a team's effective level is more than 50 greater than its opponent then for every 1 point higher beyond 50 have a 1% chance of the superior team "playing down" to the opposition by suffering a X% performance decrease where X is 1 for every 10 average effective levels their team average EL is higher than the opposing team's average EL. Have the same but opposite effect for the lower effective level team, giving them a 1% chance to have a plus X% to their player attributes and skills for the game. To limit this somewhat, have a 1% chance at the half of the teams penalty or bonus being cancelled per every point the underdog is beating the winning team by. Thus they may have a good first half till the other team wakes up under their coaches anger in the locker room.

Increased Temporary Boosting. I've floated a couple of different schemes for this. But the idea is to have players have a limited ability to boost their skills for a single game, but unlike the BT driven system we have now let it be available more often. This would let underdogs save points to try to beat the superior teams while the superior teams try to save their points for crucial seed determining games against equal foes. In one concept the points come so many per day. In the other the player had to take a day off to get some extra gas for another game, which would improve the underdog chances even more. Either way, this fluctuation in player performance would improve parity in some games.

Reduce the Range of Performance. The slowest cornerback in the NFL is only a few steps slower than the speediest CB in Canton. As such no matter how hard a GLB agent tries to mismanage his build, the stats should not allow a performance gap beyond what is "realistic". Accordingly, rethink and re-scale the meaning of attributes and skills to on the field performance. Basically look at Combine stats for your frame of reference, for example. For speed positions (safety, RB, WR, TE, CB) the range of 40 yard dash times are 4.24 for the best recent score (08) to 4.68 as the slowest in 2012 (you could go into more history on this if desired). Next take the speedster/receiver archetypes of the various positions. Figure out which one would have the lowest speed in GLB at plateau if he did a moderate job of training speed and got his ALGs but put no AEQ CEQ into speed. Now do an optimum build and add the full 58 AEQ CEQ to speed. Figure out GLB speed equivalent of a 4.24 second dash and a 4.74 one say. Divide that across the number of speed points between your two examples (say 60 to 165) and that is how much speed each point of speed should represent in game. If you did this with each attribute you should get a more reasonable representation of skill ranges and have less insane break aways or people running circles around others.

League Performance Minimums. This is supposed to be an NFL simulation (zip it, it IS and you know it). As such There are no high school girl's soccer players in the NFL, nor a pee wee 2 year old in the SEC conference. As such there should not be players in a league in GLB that are so horribly inferior to their league mates that they play like a 2 year old pee wee or a girls soccer player. So grade player performance on a curve. Take the average effective level of all players in the league. If any player is more than X% (say fifty percent for example) below the league average effective level, boost his game time effective attributes and skills by some percentage (say till his EL is equal to 50% below the average EL of the league or whatever floor seems desirable) to boost him to where he belongs on the field in this league. Not because he deserves it, but because the other players in the league deserve a better simulation and the bad builds shouldnt be screwing it up for them. If you want to punish non-boosters, lower the cap and the boost for every boost below those that should have been available to the dot by his age but were not used.

Underdog VA. This Player Receives a 1% chance for a 1% Boost to Attributes and Skills per level of Underdog for every 10% his teams Effective Level is below the opponents team's effective level.

Go Easy VA This player receives a plus 1 to stamina and morale for every point of Go Easy VA, but a 1% decrease in Attributes and Skills for Every 10% advantage his team has in Effective Level over their Opponent's Effective Level.

Originally posted by All American Dude
As you mentioned, it was toned down enough to where no one notices it any longer. The reason I didn't like it wasn't because teams were coming back. I didn't like the fact superior dots played like absolute shit after the 70 point threshold.

As well they should have.

That the way it was implemented was bad does not mean the concept was bad, merely the implementation.

Have the penalty wax and wane with the score differential and vanish if the gap becomes more "realistic" and it should work fine.