BuzzerBeater Forums

Suggestions > Walk Over

Walk Over

Set priority
Show messages by
This Post:
00
71584.9 in reply to 71584.8
Date: 2/9/2009 6:15:49 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
154154
If you really care you would get my points already.

This Post:
00
71584.10 in reply to 71584.9
Date: 2/9/2009 6:18:39 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
303303
I do.

I disagree with them, if you didn't notice.

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
71584.11 in reply to 71584.1
Date: 2/9/2009 6:22:56 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
1919
I think we need to suggest a new change about WOs.
I think if a team loses by WO (-25), he should also lose the training for that week.

I say this because there´s a case in my league where the 2nd knows that losing just by 25 points he keeps his position. And i´m sure there are many cases like this around BB; so I think this is not fair for the competition, so this should change for next season.



To be honest, I think that rather than propose a change like this, the tie breaker criteria should be different. Instead of plus/minus, which can be rather arbitrary because we have little control over running up the score, I think that the game should use head-to-head records first, then conference records if necessary, and then go to plus/minus.

From: Kukoc

This Post:
00
71584.12 in reply to 71584.7
Date: 2/9/2009 6:46:01 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
13361336
if you login couple times a week you are fine. If not you MAY have been in trouble. If you logn 1-2 times per 2 weeks (setting lineups in advance) you should not be punish for that if some nasty things happened to you meanwhile.


Are you serious? This would mean that we should remove injuries from this game or let players get injured only for current game. How hard is it to log on for before both league games? If your player get's injured and you have not logged in to compensate you should be punished...

This game should be both for obssesed players and casual managers who log in about once in a week (or even rarer, epecially if something happened in real life - injuries, crashed pcs, lost jobs, bankruptcy, whatever - you can't force people to have BB at first place).


Again are you serious??? Is it anyone elses fault than yours that you can't pay for your internet, throw your pc out of the window etc. Use internet cafe or free wifi areas (atleast our country has plenty of those). You make it sound like it is impossible to log in 2 times a week. Let BB's know when you have health issues so we can freeze this game for a month so you would not fall behind. Scouting your opponent just before the coming game is important (he might of had injuries and just started to use different tactics that might change your tactics).

+it's pointless to buy scrubs for 1k if you can have below 1k salary players on your team if you really need scrubs;)

From: docend24

This Post:
00
71584.13 in reply to 71584.12
Date: 2/9/2009 6:55:48 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
154154
Again are you serious??? Is it anyone elses fault than yours that you can't pay for your internet, throw your pc out of the window etc. Use internet cafe or free wifi areas (atleast our country has plenty of those). You make it sound like it is impossible to log in 2 times a week. Let BB's know when you have health issues so we can freeze this game for a month so you would not fall behind. Scouting your opponent just before the coming game is important (he might of had injuries and just started to use different tactics that might change your tactics).


As you could notice it is not my case. Point of this was if something bad happens to someone in RL, ruining his results, he/she can say no - well, at least training went well. If teams which don't care at all (I mean those who really don't) still getting their training (albeit not the most efficient one probably) why shouldn't a team which just happen to occur in a walk over.

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
Advertisement