The CPU opponent debate: Have your say!

[Crease]

For the Sim Public, which of the following options do you prefer?

A. Each Manager as the ability to sign a fight against any CPU opponent.

On the plus side, it guarantees that Managers will always have the direction of their fighters - and they will always get the CPU backup that they have asked for.

But on the minus side, it could lead to a CPU opponent having multiple fights in any given week... Just as we seen with Kevin Mitchell, this particular week.


OR

B. CPU opponent can only fight once a week.

On the plus side, it will mean that the CPUs don't gather more fights than the Managed fighters, which potentially could happen with the other option.

On the minus side, when certain Managers rush and don't check which opponents are available, they could name a signed opponent who is unavailable. Then, that fight cannot be signed. The Manager might not be online again and miss the 24 hour countdown, in which case - the Commish's would have to decide a CPU backup for them. And it takes the direction out of the Manager's hands.

Which do you prefer? Have your say in the pool.
And please leave your comments below.

[HyacinthusTurnipseed]

I voted no, because surely that is part of the game - getting in and nabbing the choicest CPUs before anyone else can. If a CPU gets a surprise win and ranking hike (or a reputation as a safer opponent, like Mitchell has), it should be a race to get in first.

It isn't as if there's no other opponent level CPU out there - managers would just have to scan the matchups thread (doesn't take more than a minute) to make sure their preferred opponent hasn't gone already.

That's what I think anyway - 'sno big deal either way to me though (I just thought it was a system error when I brought it up) and if the other managers aren't bothered we might as well just keep it as is.

[DaveyMac]

I vote B mostly for the reasons Hyacinthus said plus it's more realistic. It would seem kind of silly to me if all of a sudden everyone was fighting the same guy every week just because he was the weakest fighter.

What would really make the game more exciting is if like in real life you took a suspension for getting knocked out. So any fighter, CPU or managed, that got knocked out would have to miss the net week. :P

[witherspoon]

I voted no, mainly because I share DaveyMac's concern. I can see a situation where the weakest cpu's become extremely popular opponents.

[BoxBuzz]

If such a rule becomes available, both of our fighters will be assigned to a single "bitch cpu opponent" for the rest of the season.

And no one will be allowed to whine, complain, be snarky, or gripe. As we rise undefeated to the top of ratings.


For as always, we will be going by "the rules".

[DMA1987]

No.

[BoxBuzz]

No.

stop being so negative.

[BoxBuzz]

ok....I think the "additional option" should be that whoever called out said opponent first gets that cpu opponent. AND the commish can substitute an equally rated fighter in the place of the fighter that was named for a second time...IF the manager does not drop back in, and update his pick.

[Crease]

Seem to be pretty conclusive... It's probably going to be a bit pointless, but I'll leave this thread open for another few days, before I lock it. But the Sim public's opinion on this seems very one-sided.

[Fist of Legend]

with the return of mandatory title defenses this season for the alphabet titles (rankings will appear after Week 15), I don't want to allow this, at least for now because it will mess with the ranking system.

After the rankings have been established we can look at having guys fight the same fighter, but it just feels like lazy matchmaking on the part of some of you

[Fist of Legend]

with the return of mandatory title defenses this season for the alphabet titles (rankings will appear after Week 15)

by this, I mean that the game will calculate top 10 rankings for each title after a certain number of fights.

[Ezzard]

I voted B. Seems mores sensible to me.

[Cap]

Afghanistan.

[Tomasino]

Afghanistan.

This is preposterous!

[BoxBully]

No! ................with the exception of a punisher/executioner type for when people fail to make a pick for the week