BuzzerBeater Forums

It is not a bug. Should I move it to suggestions forum?

And please use some better title next time ;)

I thought it would get more attention in the bug forum ;)
And yes I will try to use a better title next time, and hopefully they try to use better logic in their programming. gah!

I thought it would get more attention in the bug forum ;)

And even though the suggestions forum will be the correct one to post ;)

edit:
And changed the title

Last edited by alexFerguson at 3/12/2011 8:25:05 AM

I thought it would get more attention in the bug forum ;)

And even though the suggestions forum will be the correct one to post ;)

edit:
And changed the title

Thanks :)

You are missing the point, if my player played for 12 minutes and got an injury WITHIN those 12 minutes, then I agree you have a point.

But you can't give my player 12 minutes in the box score, and then make him play more than 12 minutes and give him an injury AFTER his first 12 minutes.

In essence, the chance of injury is applied to all 40 minutes played, even though only 12 minutes was shown on the boxscore.
So an injury shouldn't be able to occur after the 12 minutes.

It is unfair and should be changed.

If the walkover never happened, then why did the game-viewer during the walkover tell me that my player got fouled.

The game-viewer runs the game, and simply sets the scores at the end to 25-0.
And so my player was still injured during the 4th quarter of the match.
And that is what I am saying should be changed.

If a BB says that the chance of injury was only possible for 12 minutes, then fine I simply got unlucky, but if the chance of injury for the player was possible for the entire match then that is a flaw in the programming and should be changed.

in fact this is what happens:

you get a walk over from the competition team in your league, they don't show up.

but your fans have payd to view a game, so your players play a game. An exhibition game, against a team your scedule organiser has arranged for your team, especially for these cases. In that game they can get injured.

That is what happened.

training is executed on a diffrent day. On training day, only the players who played the selected positions will be called in the training gym and will get the training they are entitled to have, based on the minutes they played that week + the minutes they are granted due to walk overs (as exhibition games don't give training minutes, only cup games, league games and scrimmages give training minutes).

I know it's not what you want to hear, and you will probably fight this theory and claim it's not how it works, but there is no-one who can claim how it DOES work (except BBs), so my theory is as valid as anyone elses. ;þ
Besides, whichever the real right theory is, is unimportant, as the result will stay the same. ;)

I know you are upset, and I do understand the reasoning, but if we start by analysing how training is supposed to happen, then there is a lot more that is not right and seems like rubbish, and I never heard anyone complaint about that.

The system is as it is, and it's the same for everyone. And if this realy needs to be changed because of this incident, I'll vote to have walk-overs be 25-0 and no minutes as there is no game played,
because that will make the most sense to me.
It would be against my pronciples to claim something irrealistic needs to change (more minutes played then training received), only to change it in something else irrealistic (no game played, yet players get 36 and 12 minutes of play, and liekwise injurypossibility).

Thanks for the response, but I am not saying that I want minutes for training or anything like that.
I would rather they change it to what you said, and give me a 25-0 win and have no minutes as there is no game played.
I just think it is stupid that my players get injured in a walkover.

You mentioned in your theory that because it is a walkover my team plays an exhibition game, but what I want to know is whether the BBs make this game last for 48 minutes?

It's hard to explain what I'm trying to say so not sure if you understand but I'll try it differently.

My players were lined up as the backup and reserve spaces for each position and I left the starter position blank because I didn't want the extra minutes.
As a result in the boxscore my players all got 12 minutes each (10 minutes for backup + 2 minutes for reserve).
In addition, one of my players was injured.

Now what I want to know, is that when the BBs try to calculate the chance of an injury occuring to one of my players during this walkover, do they calculate the probability of an injury over the 12 minutes I chose, or do they test the probability over the entire 48 minutes of the match.

If they test the probability of an injury occuring over the entire 48 minutes of the match then it is highly unfair to my players because the chance of injury is greater than the amount of minutes they are actually playing.

Hope that makes sense.

yes, I understood in the first post as well.

and I said in my post I understand your reasoning: not fair to train for 12 minutes, but get more minutes of chances for injuries.
If you only selected 5 players for the game, they each will indeed had 48 minutes in the exhibition game, and 48 minutes of injury chances.
If you had more players, some of them will have played less then 48 minutes, and will had less then 48 minutes chances of injury.

I think you should see it as 2 diffrent things:
* you are rewarded with trainingminutes (to compensate for lost minutes due to forfeits).
* your players still play an exhibition game, and in that game they can get injuries.

When I look at it, being neutral, I think it's a prety fair system.

by saying: a forfeit will get you no trainingminutes, you will punish a team severely.
but by saying, you can not get injuries, yet you get a full game worth of training minutes, you reward a team that gets a forfeit too much, compared to other teams who have to play for their minutes, and their victory, and risk injuries as well...

When we try to analyse a game (and I'm not sure, but I think that's what the BBs must have done when deciding how to deal with forfeits), there are 4 important things for managers: 1 point diffrence, 2 trainingminutes, 3 game-income and 4 possibility of injuries.
point difference is a hard call, as somethimes one can win by 40 points or more, but other times one can win by only 3 points or less. so they decided to make it 25 points.
trainingminutes: also difficult. in close games starters typically get over 40 minutes and back-ups 8 or less, while in walk overs starters get closer to 30 and back ups the rest, so they decided to divide it 36-10-2 which looks decent to me as well.
income: they kept it the same, so that's very nice.
injuries: to keep it as close to the rest, they decided to keep the injury-possibility for an entire game as well, and the only way (at least easy way) is to just have your team play a game, and see if someone would get an injury...

Considering that the minutes from walkovers aren't ideal for training situations anyway, it wouldn't benefit teams much if there was no chance of injury in a walkover.

And if they change it so that you can't get injuries in a walkover, that isn't really disadvantaging anyone because everyone is in the same situation. Your argument to this was that some teams may get more walkovers and so have an advantage, but I doubt any team gets many walkovers against them, so this small benefit is negligible.