Error Icon
Check how to improve security while using RedZoneAction.org
Community - American Football Management Simulator
AdBlocker active? It seems you are using software to block advertisements. You could help us if you could switch it off when visiting redzoneaction.org. The reason is very simple: Advertisements help us running the site, to offer you the game in a good quality for free. So if you like the game, please support us by purchasing a Supporter Account or disabling the AdBlocker on this site. Thank you very much!
Main / Discussions / Using Points Allowed instead of Points Differential Search Forum
Navigation: |<   1 2  3  16  17  18  >   >|  
  Poll: Should we change the tiebreakers for the League and Supercup Divisions and Friendly Cups?, Poll closed, votes: 356
121
Yes, use Points allowed instead Points Differential
160
No, keep it as it is now
75
I don't care!
Poster Message
Meitheisman
posted: 2013-03-18 23:24:39 (ID: 87266) Report Abuse
Apparently using Head to Head is not doable but I was thinking that using Points Allowed might have a couple of positive effects.

- A 42-0 victory would be worth the same thing as a 150-0 victory therefore teams with a big lead would have an incentive to run the clock out to avoid the opposition having another possession instead of having an incentive to keep scoring as fast as possible. That'd be more realistic, unless they're called BB coaches usually try to run the clock out when up by 4/5 TDs in the second half, not to score as many points as possible.

- Bot games wouldn't be the deciding factor as much. Today if a team goes Bot during the season its late-season opponents get a massive advantage by torching said team by 100+ points when earlier opponents won by reasonable/realistic margins. If only points allowed counted the difference between a 21-14 victory and a 100-0 victory would only be 14pts while today it's 93pts making it almost impossible to catch up.


Of course a 3-0 victory would therefore be more valuable than a 42-28 victory but I think it's a small price to pay to add realism and reduce the influence of teams going Bot in the middle of a season.

What do you guys think?
Quote   Reply   Edit  
Fummer
posted: 2013-03-18 23:36:14 (ID: 87270) Report Abuse
Meitheisman wrote:
- A 42-0 victory would be worth the same thing as a 150-0 victory therefore teams with a big lead would have an incentive to run the clock out to avoid the opposition having another possession instead of having an incentive to keep scoring as fast as possible. That'd be more realistic, unless they're called BB



Another eagles (guessing from team name) fan who hate BB (emperor palpatine). I vote yes to all you say brother.

PS. How do we get Mr. Lurie to talk like Yoda?
Quote   Reply   Edit  
C17Ajax
posted: 2013-03-19 00:06:30 (ID: 87274) Report Abuse
I'm all for it!

I'm stubborn and try to run the clock out anyway when I'm winning- - Just feels more like football that way
Quote   Reply   Edit  
badkarma
posted: 2013-03-19 07:37:09 (ID: 87284) Report Abuse
Sounds like an excellent compromise that will reduce bot/bot'ed teams from deciding as much as they do.
Quote   Reply   Edit  
CapitalMistake
posted: 2013-03-19 07:47:29 (ID: 87285) Report Abuse
I think that this is a great solution for the bot issues and cannot see any downsides that outweigh the problems by BOT teams.

Last edited on 2013-03-19 07:48:26 by CapitalMistake
Quote   Reply   Edit  
sh8888
posted: 2013-03-19 08:22:00 (ID: 87291) Report Abuse
It's a bad idea.
It will encourage extremely negative tactics, even against Bots.
Currently, even some of the very best RZA teams don't have "shutdown Defenses" .... Reason ? ... because the whole point of the game is to win ... and whether you win 38-35 or 14-0 shouldn't matter much, it's the fact that you've won that should matter.

If this suggestion was implemented (god forbid ) .... I can see a situation next season where Team A is eliminated because they allowed 1 or 2 field goals against Bots whereas Team B didn't. Does that mean Team B is a better team ? ....... No, because the 'tactics' of bots are totally random.

It would be a real shame if changes like this were made just to satisfy one or two whiners whose teams narrowly missed SC qualification, changes made hastily as a result of a knee-jerk reaction are rarely well-thought changes. The rules are the same for everyone, use your initiative and plan your tactics to make best use of the rules instead.

In real-life, I'm struggling to think of any sport/competition that uses 'Points Allowed' as the initial Tiebreaker.

Edit :- Looks like this change would also give some teams who are no longer in the qualification hunt the opportunity to sabotage other teams by using MOTY. Currently, this probably isn't a factor ... i.e. if a team that can't/won't qualify uses MOTY , if that Team loses then there is little difference ........ but with a "points allowed" tiebreaker, a team that is out of the qualification hunt could use MOTY in order to score points against another team and thereby hurt his 'points allowed' tally.
Lol ... yet another (and there are many) good reason to make MOTY obsolete.

Last edited on 2013-03-19 08:52:41 by sh8888
Quote   Reply   Edit  
pete
H2TAGIT4Q

Europe   pete owns a supporter account   pete is a Knight of RedZoneAction.org

Joined: 2011-09-01/S00
Posts: 20506
Top Manager



 
 posted: 2013-03-19 09:20:08 (ID: 87297) Report Abuse
sh8888 wrote:

It would be a real shame if changes like this were made just to satisfy one or two whiners ...
...that is why I added a poll to see what the majority is thinking...
Quote   Reply   Edit  
badkarma
posted: 2013-03-19 09:45:00 (ID: 87303) Report Abuse
I can see where you're coming from Sh, but right now the games aren't even decided on the field. They can be decided based on a person on the other side of the world who decides to no longer play the game!

And that even covers the MOTY situation. As much as I agree, at least it's people playing the game who decide your fate (maybe you should have less enemies ), not someone who's stopped playing!

sh8888 wrote:Currently, even some of the very best RZA teams don't have "shutdown Defenses" .... Reason ? ... because the whole point of the game is to win ... and whether you win 38-35 or 14-0 shouldn't matter much, it's the fact that you've won that should matter.

So putting all your effort into an overpowered offense to win is a legitimate tactic, but putting all your effort into a shutdown defence is not? When was this decided as part of the game? Did I miss that in the manual?
I read this as.. play the game my way or you're a whiner.

But the bottom line is, due to the above logic - most people want awesome offences like in real life (cos hey QB's and WR's and RB's are cool and D# lines are boring), so this vote will not be "What's the best idea?" but "What is my team built to do?" - run up the score or shutdown the opponent. And I'd be surprised if many people have selected the latter.

Last edited on 2013-03-19 09:45:20 by badkarma
Quote   Reply   Edit  
badkarma
posted: 2013-03-19 10:04:57 (ID: 87306) Report Abuse
Also keep in mind that playing in 1.1 you only really face bot games in the SC. For the rest of the players, being forced to run up 120+ points every time you play a bot, to be successful happens in their league games as well.
Quote   Reply   Edit  
holmeboy
posted: 2013-03-19 10:13:32 (ID: 87307) Report Abuse
I've spent the last few seasons focussing on getting a solid D together, 10 of my 12 draft picks have been D guys and you can probably see that from my team rating. But I'm against this suggestion...

I agree with SH8888.

And imo the only time point difference becomes an issue is if a team goes bot in the league. There is a chance I'll miss out on clinching division and homefield advantage because a team I played earlier in the season went bot after I played them and one of my rivals have played them twice since they went bot so they have a much better point difference. But this change doesn't solve that.
Quote   Reply   Edit  
reply   Mark this thread unread
Navigation: |<   1 2  3  16  17  18  >   >|  
Main / Discussions / Using Points Allowed instead of Points Differential
© 2009 - 2024 by Pete     Visit our sister game RedZoneClash.org           IPv6 disabled! Booo, you are using old style IPv4...