Wouldn't argue with that point as it's a valid point, just that it doesn't cover every eventuality, and yes there are times when 7 fixtures have been played, some players can't play because they weren't part of the team at the start of a fixture, some were subbed out, some have connection issues and some have time zone issues. That doesn't seem like an unlikely situation for one default (as your point doesn't cover situations where a clan know's it is going to lose a default and can't get it played)

And Craig, that just seems like an attempt at a personal attack on me, I have been constructive, if you even bother to read the page you'll see i have posted my idea's forward, and that i'm not the only one commenting on other peoples views

and my solutions aren't majestic i genuinely thought you have changed, ah well

Just mean that with more bonus points for completing captains would prioritise getting the games done even more, do subs earlier and (with more swaps allowed) see 2 eligible players online and make the swap needed.

Think another problem is when the captains and vices aren't on especially last couple of days, swaps could be done but nobody can do them.

i did not name a player i was talking over the years so please get it right mate
just for the book i dont name or shame a player that is wrong like you just did so please keep names out of it

Grow a brain cell! you said the good players wait till the last minute to play, onevisit said he plays his first day.....it's a joke not rocket science either. Crawl back in your hole if you can't keep up!

that dose not matter you are breaking a rule by naming a player that is wrong

Think that hole is beckoning....jeez

lol. I genuinely dont care who thinks im good or not so hope we can get back on topic!

Regardless of how how good a player they are they should be punished for defaults!

No exceptions should be made!

totally agree with the bit in bold, it is up to captains to ensure games get played, I know its not easy being a captain but with 14 players in a clan they have 6 subs per fixture, you would think that would be plenty but obviously not for some, captains recruit players for their clans so they should be held responsible if a player is unreliable and kept in that clan, I say if games go to default and one player is at fault they deserve to get punished and so should the captain.

I also think if a clan has a certain amount of defaults in a season the league runners need to have a good look at why and take action if needed, that could mean either forcing a change of captain or removing the clan from the league.

One thing that has to be remembered is that in the seasons past this site was mainly UK players as it has grown the site now has multi nationals so what kev and dgen propose is a good idea. When fixtures are done they are done they don't check where a person is from etc. Its just done and Captains then have to apply our knowledge of where members are from and whats best to get the game played.

But most of them do everything they can do because they want the fixtures played regardless of whether they get points or not for it

And anybody in a clan can make a swap, so if a captain/vice isn't online in the last few days of a fixture, anyone else in the clan can make the call

Just to go even further with this point, it's not just a matter of where the person lives. Its their own personal situation which can be unique to them. e.g. because of work they may only be able to get on at 3am-6am even if they live in the UK. So pretty much have to take into account that a clan match can take place at anytime of the day, so even if both players were online 10 hours a day, it doesn't neccessarily mean that they could play - fixture swaps need to be looked into, and the earlier it happens in a fixture the better

Good to know Ang did tell me to go ahead and make a swap if i saw 2 online and games needed playing but thought it had to be captain or vice.
I'm not saying captains don't try and get the games done already what i'm saying is because the bonus points are negligible at the moment you naturally wait hoping for your player who you think is going to get a better result to get it played and subs get done too late.
We want no defaults, that's the idea and everyone accepts it is totally achievable so if everyone completes their matches doesn't matter if it's 50 or a million bonus points. It's just punishing teams that don't get games played and rewarding teams that do.

But you're also punishing the teams who aren't at fault during a default, i think the minus points on a default being possible is a better way to deal with it, because it effects each individual player and not just the whole team.

One possible example of this being better is if there is more than one game left to play, not as much effort may be put in by the players involved if they know one game is going to go to default already (e.g. player deactivates after 1 frame is played), then it completely wipes out the benifit of the bonus as an incentive, whereas the minus score for a default means even if one game is going to a default, there is still an incentive for the other players in terms of it still can affect them.

Also there is no differentiation between a match where all 16 games go to default and a match where only 1 game goes to a default on the last frame. In both situations both teams would miss out on the 50 bonus points for completing a fixture, but the team who didn't get one game finished could still end up with a better score than the team who got all but 1 frame played.

But i still think that this should be used side by side the bonus for getting fixtures played, but with a more reasonable score (50 bonus points is like playing a 3rd fixture)

If you look at the individuals leagues, there are 10 points for completing fixtures, and usually 20 players start the league. So the maximum is 95 points plus 10 points for completion is about 10.5%

^ which is the equivalent of about 25 points for completing a set of fixtures (2 matches - 16 games - 240 frames on offer) which is quite reasonable

You want to incentivise playing games and having no defaults, but not allow the league final standings to be purely detirmined on who can complete the most fixtures

When is the deadline for nicking players off other teams?

Transfer would be the appropriate word

as far as i know, there isnt a deadline. Players who move from one team to another within the season are ineligible to play until the next fixture

if im wrong someone correct me

In between seasons they can move freely. During seasons (from pre-season friendly) they can move only if their captain agrees to release them.

might want to look at starting new season with the freindlys on the 26/6/11 gives us aweek to set sites up.

so transfer window would close on midnight the 24/06/11

give staff team list by midnight on the 24/06/11.

and fixtures released on the 26/06/11.


How tha sound kev and dgen

I know defaults are always an issue in clan games! *chucks spanner into the works*

What is there were no defaults and the games that were not played were then classed as lost points, so the reward then goes to the teams that have played the most games!

Because at certain times more teams are reliable, and at others they aren't

so a team could be on a just enough to get the games played against a team and get points, then the team they play turns into a mess, and say the most reliable team in the league plays them, but can't get a game played because their opponents are never on

Might work if defaults were rare, and consistant. But they're more frequent than that, and a lot of the time there are more defaults in one set than another (e.g. normally a lot more at the end than the start)

Which wouldn't make it about who is most reliable, but who gets the luck of playing the unreliable teams/players when they are active