no content
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
|
|||||||
| Poster | Message | ||||||
|
notsch
|
posted: 2013-03-22 22:54:34 (ID: 87862) Report Abuse | ||||||
|
bwadders76 wrote:
Points Allowed? You are now telling sides that building a potent offense will have to wait because defense is all that matters in this game. Also a side with a great offense could also have a great defense. ?? Your record is still the most important measure...to say that d# would be all that matters in a PA system isn´t accurate at all IMHO...just score more points as your opponent 
On the other hand is it really fair that in the current system high-octane-offenses have a huge advantage over more d#like squads
I don´t think your argumentation is based on any logic a guy like Mr. Spock would appreciate 
On the other hand, wiesengrund really had some good arguments for a pa driven system back there on page 2-5 
I lost my last SC-division 'on purpose' against my strongest opponent within the division cause i didn´t use MOTY (he did, what i was aware of). i knew my pd would be good enough to guarante me a spot in the playoffs and so i simply didn´t care about the result. I don´t think thats the way it should be...in a pa based systems i probably would have been forced to play MOTY. On the other hand...using PA would make kind of a succesful 'wolfpack'-strategy in SC-divisions more likely...'lower skilled' human teams could prevent the one 'superior' team getting into the playoffs by all using MOTY against this one team. I think with such a strategy in a pa-based system, i wouldn´t have made the playoffs in the supercup this season. And this is IMHO unfair, too 
So, i dunno...i voted "Yes, use Points allowed instead Points Differential", since that makes life more difficult for established teams. But both systems aren´t perfect...  Last edited on 2013-03-22 22:56:26 by notsch |
|||||||
| Quote Reply Edit | |||||||
|
darkopposum
|
posted: 2013-03-24 18:08:56 (ID: 88006) Report Abuse | ||||||
|
person with the best defense in the game and like all 1 star offense could win the tiebreaker instead of a more balanced team
|
|||||||
| Quote Reply Edit | |||||||
|
bv515109
|
posted: 2013-03-25 11:25:14 (ID: 88054) Report Abuse | ||||||
|
Not likely. From my admittedly limited experience so far, special teams in general suck. You already need at least a marginally capable offense to even survive (ie: not go 3 and out followed by a 25 yd punt, or miss a -30 yd fg). And even if you have a stud defense, if you give another team a short field over and over, they WILL score. Beyond that, if a "balanced" team really has playoff aspirations, but the same record as a team without at least a competent offense, they have bigger issues than losing a tiebreaker.
But right now, you are encouraged to build a team like the 2012-13 Saints. Massively overpowered offensively to beat down on bots, and why worry about defense? As long as you can outpace some human teams to 49-42 type wins, going 150-0 against bots guarantees you will have a tiebreak advantage over anyone else with a different philosophy. As I've said, the change is far from perfect, but the problems it presents seem much smaller to me than those that currently exist. There is a reason that Saints team underachieved. There is more to football than passing for a bajillion touchdowns a season. Heck, the way the system is now even encourages complete omission of a running game. After all, why run and risk not having enough time to score those extra three TDs in the 4th and only win 98-0? Just pass every play! 
Serious question to anyone else who has been here a long time: do you not find that ridiculous? I understand that it's been like that forever, and I could make a "bot-passing" playbook myself. But do you really think that's a good thing? That such a ridiculous mindset is rewarded? I don't see how any of the flaws mentioned about the PA system outweigh how irrational that is. Sorry if it seems like I am being this guy  I just really don't understand how it would be any worse. |
|||||||
| Quote Reply Edit | |||||||
|
bwadders76
|
posted: 2013-03-25 11:32:33 (ID: 88055) Report Abuse | ||||||
|
darkopposum wrote:
person with the best defense in the game and like all 1 star offense could win the tiebreaker instead of a more balanced team I agree, I think most people (myself included) have been talking in terms of either end of the spectrum great offense or great defense |
|||||||
| Quote Reply Edit | |||||||
|
sh8888
|
posted: 2013-03-25 11:39:28 (ID: 88060) Report Abuse | ||||||
|
bv515109 wrote:
Serious question to anyone else who has been here a long time: do you not find that ridiculous? I understand that it's been like that forever It hasn't been like that forever. Under Engine V1, most Teams adopted the Forrest Gump tactics ..... just run Forrest, run ....... the number of "Passing Teams" could almost be counted on one hand ..... in fact, there were so few Passing Teams that almost everybody knew the names of all those teams . I remember playing a League game in those days where the opposition attempted zero passes ...... that was far from unique. Plenty of teams just had a playbook of "Rush - always, Direction- over the left end, always". |
|||||||
| Quote Reply Edit | |||||||
|
bwadders76
|
posted: 2013-03-25 11:55:09 (ID: 88063) Report Abuse | ||||||
|
bv515109 wrote:
Not likely. From my admittedly limited experience so far, special teams in general suck. You already need at least a marginally capable offense to even survive (ie: not go 3 and out followed by a 25 yd punt, or miss a -30 yd fg). And even if you have a stud defense, if you give another team a short field over and over, they WILL score. Beyond that, if a "balanced" team really has playoff aspirations, but the same record as a team without at least a competent offense, they have bigger issues than losing a tiebreaker. But right now, you are encouraged to build a team like the 2012-13 Saints. Massively overpowered offensively to beat down on bots, and why worry about defense? As long as you can outpace some human teams to 49-42 type wins, going 150-0 against bots guarantees you will have a tiebreak advantage over anyone else with a different philosophy. As I've said, the change is far from perfect, but the problems it presents seem much smaller to me than those that currently exist. There is a reason that Saints team underachieved. There is more to football than passing for a bajillion touchdowns a season. Heck, the way the system is now even encourages complete omission of a running game. After all, why run and risk not having enough time to score those extra three TDs in the 4th and only win 98-0? Just pass every play!
Serious question to anyone else who has been here a long time: do you not find that ridiculous? I understand that it's been like that forever, and I could make a "bot-passing" playbook myself. But do you really think that's a good thing? That such a ridiculous mindset is rewarded? I don't see how any of the flaws mentioned about the PA system outweigh how irrational that is. Sorry if it seems like I am being this guy I just really don't understand how it would be any worse.If this is the case then please explain the following #1 passing sides Admirals 1.1 The Diplomats 6-10 Claymore 1.1 Mammouth 8-8 Dragons 1.1 Mystic Warriors 13-3 Fire 1.1 K.A.F Guardians 5-11 Galaxy 1.1 *Pawn Stars* 12-4 Monarchs 1.1 Vilbler Wasserbube 10-6 Sea Devils 1-1 Devon Warriors 13-3 Thunder 1.1 Packers 7-9 #1 rushing sides Admirals 1.1 Free Agent Mascots 15-1 Claymore 1.1 Eagles 14-2 Dragons 1.1 SF49ers 14-2 (won Div ahead of Mystic Warriors) Fire 1.1 Lambruschia 15-1 Galaxy 1.1 Cameroon Turtles 13-3 Monarchs 1.1 Rivne Monarchs 8-8 Sea Devils 1.1 Leeds Celtics 15-1 Thunder 1.1 Landru Athletics 14-2 Only twice did the top passing side make the playoffs yet the top rushing side made the post season 7 out of 8 times |
|||||||
| Quote Reply Edit | |||||||
|
Meitheisman
|
posted: 2013-03-25 16:43:29 (ID: 88090) Report Abuse | ||||||
|
darkopposum wrote:
person with the best defense in the game and like all 1 star offense could win the tiebreaker instead of a more balanced team Today the best offense in the game and like all 1 star defense could win the tiebreaker instead of a more balanced team. |
|||||||
| Quote Reply Edit | |||||||
|
bwadders76
|
posted: 2013-03-25 16:48:19 (ID: 88091) Report Abuse | ||||||
|
Meitheisman wrote:
darkopposum wrote:
person with the best defense in the game and like all 1 star offense could win the tiebreaker instead of a more balanced team Today the best offense in the game and like all 1 star defense could win the tiebreaker instead of a more balanced team. While the offense would put points on the board I couldn't see the defense keeping enough points off the board against non bot sides to get to a tie breaker. |
|||||||
| Quote Reply Edit | |||||||
|
Meitheisman
|
posted: 2013-03-25 17:44:03 (ID: 88096) Report Abuse | ||||||
|
bwadders76 wrote:
Meitheisman wrote:
darkopposum wrote:
person with the best defense in the game and like all 1 star offense could win the tiebreaker instead of a more balanced team Today the best offense in the game and like all 1 star defense could win the tiebreaker instead of a more balanced team. While the offense would put points on the board I couldn't see the defense keeping enough points off the board against non bot sides to get to a tie breaker. See how you had to add the "against non bot sides" caveat? That's exactly what makes the current system MORE wrong than the suggested one imo. Bot games currently immensely favor offensive teams (passing offensive teams more specifically) while using PA would only very slightly advantage defensive teams. Last edited on 2013-03-25 17:44:29 by Meitheisman |
|||||||
| Quote Reply Edit | |||||||
|
bwadders76
|
posted: 2013-03-25 18:19:59 (ID: 88099) Report Abuse | ||||||
|
Meitheisman wrote:
bwadders76 wrote:
Meitheisman wrote:
darkopposum wrote:
person with the best defense in the game and like all 1 star offense could win the tiebreaker instead of a more balanced team Today the best offense in the game and like all 1 star defense could win the tiebreaker instead of a more balanced team. While the offense would put points on the board I couldn't see the defense keeping enough points off the board against non bot sides to get to a tie breaker. See how you had to add the "against non bot sides" caveat? That's exactly what makes the current system MORE wrong than the suggested one imo. Bot games currently immensely favor offensive teams (passing offensive teams more specifically) while using PA would only very slightly advantage defensive teams. Again totally disagree it favours sides willing to exploit a situation. Which is no different than spotting an exploit in a non bot teams playbook. |
|||||||
| Quote Reply Edit | |||||||
| reply Mark this thread unread | |||||||
| Navigation: |< < 1 2 3 16 17 18 > >| | |||||||
| Main / Discussions / Using Points Allowed instead of Points Differential | |||||||
