- Should that number be increased? To what?
- Should it be unlimited?
In some situations, the 4-round limit can make it take several weeks to redo/rebuild a team. 4 rounds of submissions do not guarantee 4 successful awarded picks. When a team is dealing with a rash of injuries or taking over an abandoned team, more drastic changes may be desired.
Possible unintended consequences:
- Benchwarmer has been a mix of rabid/casual players. The once per week nature of transactions and lineups means that people don't have to log in daily to change their team. Missing a week of transactions can be costly, but currently doesn't have to be deemed critical since other teams are limited in the number of players that they can pick up.
- Benchwarmer has typcially had slow gradual changes to teams as opposed to massive overhauls, an approach I generally like.
- If transactions are unlimited or at a high number, it is possible that a team or collection of teams, if highly motivated, could corner the market on first-round draft picks/September callups when they are added to the game - rather than be limited to 4 per week.
Please use the comments section for this post to weigh in with your opinion.
Posts
7 comments:
I think we should leave it at 4. It is enough transactions to adequately maintain your team, while providing a governor on those managers that would select every decent free agent if given the means and opportunity.
With any game, it always more interesting when you have to make a greater number of difficult decisions than a lesser amount. If there are 5 players you really want, make the tough decision, and give another team a chance at the 5th player.
Let's leave it at 4. That's usually enough slots to pick up a guy for the roster and to pick up prospects also. Dave's right about having to make tough choices. It's what a GM has to do anyway.
Phil
As a former Robot player, and longtime BWB vet, I also believe that the number should remain at 4. That is plenty since there is the option for alternate picks if the primary pick is selected.
Also, it is ironic that replying to this has the statement "Please prove you're not a robot" in order to reply...LOL
Agree - leave it at 4. If you're wanting to make 10 moves in a week because your team is horrible, you're in trouble anyway and the rebuilding can wait another week. If you want to grab all of the prospects, that should be blocked too. Just the possibility of unlimited transactions means everyone who cares would have to put all of the prospects on their list when, in reality, most of the players will be taken anyway, making it a waste of time. 4 feels right.
Never had a problem with needing more than the 4, in the last 7-8 years with 2 or 3 teams at any given time...
Love Regan's perspective that "more difficult decisions is more entertaining."
Leave it at 4!
Deeble
At first, I thought sure increase it, but after careful consideration more harm can come than good from increasing the number. I as well have never had the need for more than 4 in a week and I acquired a pretty bad orphan team once upon a time. One suggestion I may have is to lower the amount of money in benchwarmer because as Regan says "making the tough decisions" financially makes benchwarmer more realistic and more competitive. I have one team who's total salary is over 75 million dollars due to salary extensions. Don't get me wrong now, salary extensions are my favorite part of BWB, but I hardly ever feel strapped for cash and have to make tough decisions financially. What are ya'lls thoughts???
Responding to "too much" cash concerns...I do try to tinker with that from time to time, with premium salaries and increasing the cost of multiyear contracts, etc. The salary cap itself has dropped too as stats have changed and salaries are generally lower - I see from the other end with some of the orphans that cash is tight with other teams - so we might have a good mix right now.
Jon
Post a Comment