BuzzerBeater Forums

Suggestions > Walk Over

Walk Over

Set priority
Show messages by
From: Kukoc

This Post:
00
71584.14 in reply to 71584.13
Date: 2/10/2009 2:28:05 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
13361336
Ofcourse it's not your case but you are still defending it. I would not defend something I do not believe in. So basically if you log on once a week then you should have 12 players in your team. This way WO will probably not happen during one week. Team who can not field enough players should get punished by receiving no training.

From: docend24

This Post:
00
71584.15 in reply to 71584.14
Date: 2/10/2009 10:31:53 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
154154
Ofcourse it's not your case but you are still defending it. I would not defend something I do not believe in. So basically if you log on once a week then you should have 12 players in your team. This way WO will probably not happen during one week. Team who can not field enough players should get punished by receiving no training.

That's question of personality and beliefs.

Having 12 players (on roster) is not usually (that) effective. It's arguable but I think (and this I really mean it more than other things in this thread) focering managaers to have 12+ plaers on roster is not a right way to go at all.

You can set a lineup consisting of less than 12 players in advance and something can happen meanwhile - especially if the relevant match is a SC - and you can't argue about having a differetn rule for walkovers depending on type of mth match. (I just realize you can sell them meanwhile too - let say you have player on TL for several weeks, nobody wanted him for that prize, but suddenly...)

Receiving no training even if it is team training (FT,ST,GS which does not require minutes? I simply don't like the idea of wasted week of training just because one game which could be even irrelevant for the training (not just in case of team trainings)

Another new argument - you have to be able not to dress some of your players (ke players typically) to prevent injuries.

This Post:
00
71584.16 in reply to 71584.15
Date: 2/10/2009 11:08:34 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
959959
Having 12 players (on roster) is not usually (that) effective. It's arguable but I think (and this I really mean it more than other things in this thread) focering managaers to have 12+ plaers on roster is not a right way to go at all.


Ok made a 8 player out of it, i believe that this is pretty small rooster ...

So now they could have 5 injured players, and there is still no WO.

And i also also don't believe, that you should manage your team a bit more actively, i don't think that the six week is because people should login in every 6 weeks to make their lineups.

From: Kukoc

This Post:
00
71584.17 in reply to 71584.15
Date: 2/10/2009 11:22:12 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
13361336
You should be getting the point yourself already. Nobody is forcing you to do anything BUT it's safer to keep 12 players if you plan to log in once a week AND you will be more effective when you log in once before every upcoming game. If you do not want to dress your key players simply leave them out of your lineup.

There is a lot of "IF"'s in your arguments. If something happens -> managers deal with it. I guess you just want an arcade mode game where everything is predictable and you log on once a month to see how your team is doing. You want to get somewhere be a little more active. I'm done with this topic now because I can't seriously believe that a guy who wants to play this game is unable to log on 2-3 times a week.

This Post:
00
71584.19 in reply to 71584.18
Date: 2/10/2009 2:24:34 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
303303
Another option might be to change the tiebreaker criteria so that the first tiebreaker is number of forfeits (fewer being better), and then point differential is second.

That might be a bit confusing though unless we displayed it on the standings page and so forth.


That's not a bad compromise at all (provided it was posted on the standings page, of course).

NO ONE at this table ordered a rum & Coke
Charles: Penn has some good people
A CT? Really?
Any two will do
Any three for me
Any four will score
Any five are live
This Post:
00
71584.20 in reply to 71584.18
Date: 2/10/2009 3:27:25 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
154154
Forfeit losses I assume? Because you can't avoid win by 25-0 walkover, so current state is clearly better, hands of the walkover winner are tied, hands of his/her competition not.

For example I have poitn differential average +26.36 so it is doable in lower levels where this could occur more often (didn't in my division).

This Post:
00
71584.21 in reply to 71584.11
Date: 2/10/2009 4:52:53 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
8383
Solutions for a WO:
1. The team loses weekly training.
2. Team loses by a difference of +75 (instead of +25)
3. Team´s survey fans drops a few balls.

Any of them are good to me, though i prefer the first one!

It´s just my point of view.

This Post:
00
71584.22 in reply to 71584.21
Date: 2/10/2009 5:20:46 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
303303
2. Team loses by a difference of +75 (instead of +25)


That wont happen, it enriches the winning team too much.

NO ONE at this table ordered a rum & Coke
Charles: Penn has some good people
A CT? Really?
Any two will do
Any three for me
Any four will score
Any five are live
This Post:
00
71584.23 in reply to 71584.22
Date: 2/10/2009 5:59:10 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
1515
The problem with a rule like this is evident in my division. Torooo regularly beats all of us by more than 25 no matter how badly we wish otherwise. A change like this would mean that more often than not 2 teams in my division would lose training each week.

He only failed to win by more than 25 in three league games this season. Without BBB it would have only been once.

Essentially a rule like this would punish most of division because of one exceptional team.


This Post:
00
71584.24 in reply to 71584.23
Date: 2/10/2009 6:00:24 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
303303
We're talking about when there is a walkover.

If this was enacted, Torooo could still whoop on teams all year and it wouldn't affect training.

NO ONE at this table ordered a rum & Coke
Charles: Penn has some good people
A CT? Really?
Any two will do
Any three for me
Any four will score
Any five are live
Advertisement