BuzzerBeater Forums

I would like to make a poll (I have already post similar poll in forum for NT and U21 coaches only). Which way do you thing of effort deals (it means mainly TIE-TIE, normal-TIE, normal-normal)?
It could be interesting to compare results of these 2 polls.

Options 1, 2 and 3 mean you usually don't break the agreement.

Poll:  Poll: Which way do you use proposal to effort deals?

Answering/not answering to the message gives too much information to the opponent and he gets the advantage.
I can understand the ones who cheat, but never do it myself.

I understand that this agreement is a part of success for several teams and I'd prefer the new rule to be added to the rules considering proposing mTIE as spam.

Answering/not answering to the message gives too much information to the opponent and he gets the advantage.

It's not actually true, you don't have to read the message or you can mark it back as unread as soon as you read it. And even if you don't react or answer you are not interested as you don't like the agreements in general I can't see advantage or disadvantage on one or another side. You don't have to know why the other side offered you an agreement and you can't know what he will play without agreement.

I understand that this agreement is a part of success for several teams and I'd prefer the new rule to be added to the rules considering proposing mTIE as spam.

I don't understand you. There is already chance to report any BB-mail as a spam.


Last edited by rwystyrk at 11/16/2011 3:40:08 AM

I can't see advantage or disadvantage on one or another side

Answering NO - means you are not gonna play TIE
Answering YES - means you the opponent will most liley play TIE
No answer - means the opponent will not play TIE
And so on.
You can make some conclusion depending on the opponent's answer.

I don't understand you.

Afaik proposing mTIE is not considered as spam by the rules.

Afaik proposing mTIE is not considered as spam by the rules.

yes thats right

Answering NO - means you are not gonna play TIE
Answering YES - means you the opponent will most liley play TIE
No answer - means the opponent will not play TIE
And so on.
You can make some conclusion depending on the opponent's answer.

thats why i have no problem with team answering yes and play whatever they want, it just get bad for me when they propose it themselves.

Answering NO - means you are not gonna play TIE

It doesn't mean, I have already play TIE after I said NO. In season our NT win Consolation Tournament.

Answering YES - means you the opponent will most liley play TIE

But there is always risk he breaks the deal.

No answer - means the opponent will not play TIE

It just means he didn't answer, nothing more. Maybe he doesn't like agreements, he can't speak english, he doesn't know what it is TIE etc.

What is actual punishment for spamming? I don't think this would lead to significantly less or even no agreements. I think if most of the community agree that we prefer playing without agreements the solution should be in change of enthusiasm and effort system so that there is no need of offering deals and not in some persecution of users offering deals.

Last edited by rwystyrk at 11/16/2011 7:25:53 AM

I am not surprised you are defending one of the keys of your success.

I can't insult another swedish manager ;-) But you still don't undestand what it's all about. I have no problem if someone says no, maybe you haven't read swedish forum well.
If general meaning is against the agreements I will be the first person to lobby for any change which makes me sence even if I have no problem with present rules. I have no problem to adapt to any rules.
In fact actual (not final) result shows there are 45 (4+18+23) pros and 26 (23+3) cons. In similar poll in NT coach forum actual result is 18 (3+6+9) pros and 11 (7+4) cons.

Last edited by rwystyrk at 11/16/2011 9:55:25 AM

Do you miss some other arguments? As I wrote in previous post, I have no problem to adapt to any rules. I'm opened to discussion about how the changes could look like. Yes, it was important point on my way in NT, but it's just about adapting to the rules well, all the others have similar chance to use agreements as well.
You still haven't answer my question about actual punishments for spam.

Last edited by rwystyrk at 11/16/2011 8:23:42 AM

I think that if two teams can agree on playing TIE, this is unfair to other teams. Why?

Because there are managers you can make an agreement with. Then there are some managers you can't. So if you're lucky and your opponent's manager is ok with agreements, you can play TIE before your crucial game and still hope for a win. If you are not lucky, you encounter a mananger who doesn't want to make any agreements.

So these "agreements" are based on luck since you never know if you will play against a manager who favors agreements or not.

Example: Let's say I'm Slovenian NT coach and I have to play against you in the next round. Knowing I can beat you only with high enthusiasm and playing "Normal", I ask this round's opponent's manager if he is willing to play TIE - he says no.

In the same round, you want to raise your enthusiasm too and ask this round's opponent's manager if he is willing to play TIE and he says yes. In the next round, I have to play CT to beat you, but I lose so much enthusiasm I can't win anything else from that moment on.

Do you think my exiting the tourmanent only because of willingness of your opponent to play TIE is fair?