Subject: [update] Walkovers

Actual rules (chapter 11):

Walkovers
Team will receive a walkover when:
- The opponent sets less than 10 players in the match (5:0),
- The tactic is removed from the tactic editor before the game and a new one is not selected (5:0),
- If both teams lineups mean the game is a walkover, the following will happen:
* 0:0 - if this is league game,
* 1:0 - if this is cup game.

===================================================
Proposal:

Team will receive a walkover when:
- The opponent sets less than 10 players in the match (2:0),
- The tactic is removed from the tactic editor before the game and a new one is not selected (2:0),
- If both teams lineups mean the game is a walkover, the following will happen:
* 0:0 - if this is league game,
* 1:0 - if this is cup game.
- Team which causes the walkover gets a -5 points fine in the league and a financial fine: No keekly money transfers from sponsors will be received on club’s account, on Saturday, after the incident.

===================================================
Background information:
The championship is decided in one country by a walkup.
# Manager A sets less than 10 players and loses to Manager B.
# Manager B gets 3 points and aadditionally an advantage of 5 goals difference.
# Manager C, who had hoped for Manager B to lose points, now has the same points as Manager B and a worse goal difference.

Additional background information:
# Manager A makes the statement, that he was not aware of the rules...
# People complain on the forum about fairness and about the choice of manager A to set less than 10 players and they assume he had the intention to help manager B on winning the championship.

===================================================
Update Of Rules:
#1: Walkovers should be just 2:0, instead of 5:0, which can be a great advantage for the match winner.
#2: With a penalty of -5 points in the league and a financial penalty (no sponsorship payments on the week after the incident), no one would assume an intention anymore (like it happened) and perrhaps nobody would claim he was not aware of the rules (like it also happened).

===================================================
Warning:
This is not a discussion explicit about the incident, that happened somewhere. This is a discussion about changing the rule, so that those kind of incidents never happen again.
My warning is directed at people who will criticize those managers or anybody else. That would be offtopic and I would immediately report it to a moderator as spam.
@ MODs: Please delete immediately spams!

===================================================
Urgency:
I think this case is urgent and it can be fixed asap. If you agree with the urgency, please respond to this post with: +1, urgent

+1, urgent

+1

with the only modification:

Update Of Rules:
#1: Walkovers should be just 2:0, instead of 5:0, which can be a great advantage for the match winner.
#2: With a penalty of -5 points in the league and a financial penalty (no sponsorship payments on the week after the incident), no one would assume an intention anymore (like it happened) and perrhaps nobody would claim he was not aware of the rules (like it also happened).

You may as well forget about the line-up. This can happen and you will be punished very hard for it. I think you can make a compromise here, that only at the 2nd walkover (in the same season) this rule is applied.

But yes, there are definitely reforms necessary regarding the handling of walkovers. I ask the DEVS for more attention and feedback about this topic.
(edited)

+1 Urgent

Also to take in a consideration :

A team should have at least 11 players. They should not be allowed to sell players if they have a minimum of 11 players in a team. If someone forgets to put the players into lineup, lineup should be automatically randomly selected 1 minute before the match(with the last used user tactic or normal). There should be no official results, as it almost never happens in RL and it is really against fair play.
5-0 win is a good result for someone, but in lower leagues it is sometimes bad result because someone would win 10-0 against such a team.
If the 11-th player retires at the end of a season, a manager should take care that he has 11 players before the start of a new calendar season. If it doesn´t happen, he should be degraded to the lowest league in a country and replaced with the one level lower league team that had the most points and best goal difference. If a player in the lowest league does something like this, he should lose his team because of unfair advantage (in current training sistem and with the injury free strategy) which is also against fair play.

It really needs a reform, sokker Comunity should deal with this Problem asap.

-1

What you describe seems to be a special case, not really common.

As robbie10 points out the score you propose could be either positive or negative, take a look at my league Segunda División 01:

-Homeros is a bot team since the first week this season, but the team kept a lineup. Many players were taken from the team because were NT members.
-Other teams in the league took advantage and scored badly against that team, but...
-That team was signed up in a friendly league at week 6. (sighs) first friendly league game result = injury, so...
-That team was unable to lineup 10 players, and they began to lose 5-0 every game, affecting mostly cuchukas team which is fighting against promotion. Then...
-Injured Player is healthy again, just right after the cuchukas game, and the other teams took advantage of this by scoring wildly against Homeros.
-the conclusion is that those 5-0 only could be fatal for cuchukas.

so, without deeper actions, your proposal could be really bad.

+1, urgent

I fully support the initial proposal and I'm clearly against "watering down" the suggestion of tsolias.

My compatriot's idea of giving each player one wildcard per season for a "walkover without consequences" would in my view undermine the purpose of the proposed measure. I believe this might even legitimate walkovers as a tacitical measure that can be applied every once in a while.

I also believe that the implementation of a simple but fair walkover-rule is not especially time-consuming for a developer and it can definitely help to prevent annoying incidents...

+1 urgent

+1, urgent
real problem in this game :(

@ MODs: Please delete immediately spams!

===================================================
Urgency:
I think this case is urgent and it can be fixed asap. If you agree with the urgency, please respond to this post with: +1, urgent

2020-08-12 15:38:11
tsolias to tsolias
+1, urgent

Just a little lol moment :)


On the topic, 5-0 is fine. It is not some crazy result in Sokker. If you wanna help someone just leave your friendly lineup and you lose 15-0.

Now, I hope that these things will become very rare. Devs said that the game is gonna load last league lineup for the next league game. I hope that we are gonna have better warnings, warning when deleting a tactic in use, notification when a lineup is not complete. I would like to have that min. 11 players rule that Robbie10 proposed, or a different number.

Not only that I wish for smoother management, but with all the extra features, we will know that these results happen on purpose, and than we can talk punishments. But still, Sokker is very random, you can easily lose 4-0, 5-0 against a rival, so it is really hard for the game to tell which defeat was on purpose.

- 1

I understand that it is important to ecourage compromise and teams should play the games and not lossing by wo. But removing 5 pts to the team that forgot to align is too much, has non sense! Even me that i am active but when i am very busy at work, and i sold a player, didnt have time to buy a new one and have some red card and injury players... I lost by walkover, it happens......

The change that I see more appropiate is to reduce the minimum of players to 7 or 8.

Neither + or -

Reducing the goals (or increasing them), just opens up new ways to play the system.

ie say you have 2 dominant teams in the league, but team C wants to help team A.
Simple, they play team A with their normal team, and lost 6-0.
When team C plays team B (team A's competitor), they just give a walkover, and only lose 2-0.

Now I know you say help dissuade this by losing points, but as some people feel that playing a qualification match is more beneficial than finishing 2nd/3rd/4th, then this would be a great way to make sure you drop in to the Q-match position.

So I feel league implications are too easy to manipulate either way. In my above example, it would actually be better for walkovers to stay at 5-0 or even larger, because it's easy to throw a match against a team you want to have score a lot of goals against you (corner tactic), but it's very hard to only lose by a small amount against a team much better than you, and by reducing to 2-0 this gives a viable option.



But I do like the idea of outside league incentives not to have walkovers.

A couple of ways this could be done would be:
- The team loses sponsorship that week (as you suggested), although this wouldn't bother most old teams as they are loaded
- Reduce supporter mood to the lowest level, or have a "penalty" mood for that teams next 2 home games. Again, teams with lots of money probably wouldn't care
- Already you don't get training for the players in the w/o match, which is probably the greatest incentive. Maybe "staff go on strike" after a w/o and no player who played in either match that week gets training

Just some off the top of my head ideas.
I do however think there are bigger issues in the game, but rightly so, this one should be at least looked at again to see if there is a better option

-1

Only top leagues need this fixed, for lower leagues the number of goals are much huger, and it could be the consequence of promoting or not....