BuzzerBeater Forums

I was going to weigh in my humble opinion on the various TIE threads going around, but in the few months I’ve been playing here, I’ve got a different opinion on this altogether (which I haven’t seen in a previous string, so I apologize if it’s already been suggested).

First, I’ll just say outright that I agree with the camp that thinks the whole enthusiasm thing is a bad thing, especially with teams agreeing to TIE. In fact, I think it’s pretty unrealistic to tell a team not to try their best n a game. If the fans could tell a team was dogging it, that should reflect in attendance and fan interest. I hate it when I think team isn't trying after I paid for a ticket! Realistically, just resting your starters is pretty much the same thing, and the team’s performance is generally down because the back-ups are getting the heavier minutes, so I'd much rather drop the enthusiasm thing altogether and just rely on the lineups that are set to determine team effort than to pollute the game with enthusiasm, if it were up to me. And if a team doesn’t get up for a big game without special direction from a coach or manager, well, it’s a reflection on the coach, which brings me to my suggestion…

We spend money on a trainer, a doctor, and PR guy, but the game is leaving out the most obvious important staff position of all, the coach! Couldn’t coaches be available for hire? They shouldn’t be generic staff like the other staff, but they should be unique people like the players are. Coaches can have attributes (motivation, in-game strategy, intelligence, etc.) that would add a missing element to the SIM, and would eliminate the need for enthusiasm. The team owner (real people) would still set the offensive and defensive strategies, set the line-ups, and everything else, but the ability of the coach would determine things like how rational the in-game decisions are based on the owner’s direction, how motivated the players are to play a game, how quickly players feel like they’re healthy enough to want to play after an injury, how much a age/experience counts in deciding total minutes played for each player, ability to coach well in a big game/playoff, etc. The quality of the coach would mirror his salary, and there would be a range of coaches available in a coach market (though they shouldn’t be bought from other teams like a transfer).

Any thought on this? Does anyone else think that coaches would make this game operate a little more realistically?

the change is to big for me, this would change the face of BB to much and i like those game...

On the other hand i like the strategical use of the enthusiam, so i'm like many others who actal like tie, ct and so on ;) The coach gonna an to important position for that, if you implement him like you propose and to many automatics decisions aren#t in my will to, even if i can choose the Ki when i hire the coach.

I have to respectfully disagree about a couple of your concerns.

First, about strategy, you could still contact another team and, instead of discussing a mutual TIE, you could agree to play your secondary players. (In fact, if you did that, it would be much harder for other teams to figure out that you had such an agreement than it is now, since your box score and roster would have to be studied to figure out if the reserves were starting. At present, other teams can easily see if you TIE.) Agreeing to play your reserves doesn’t have an affect on enthusiasm, but it does keep your starters from getting too tired, which is also an important factor for you as a manager.

Second, the only “automatic decision” that having a coach would necessarily take away (other than the impact of the current enthusiasm system) is Enthusiasm. Without getting back into the realism of Enthusiasm (there seem to be plenty of other treads on this, on which I already acknowledge my opinion is decidedly against Enthusiasm as a realistic or desirable part of this game), I think adding a Coach would actually increase strategic potential, since the ability of your coach would now involve a financial aspect, as well as your preferences in your coach’s attributes and abilities. (The details of what attributes a coach would have would obviously be the prerogative of the very capable game developers, who have obviously done great work in getting this game to where it is now. If it wasn’t such a great game, I wouldn’t even care to share my thoughts on what I think would make it better, and there weren’t be constructive responses on the suggestions from other caring participants. But I digress…) As things stand, there are already automatics in how your team is coached. Your ability to select an offense and defense for a game probably won’t go away with the addition of a coach. You can still give your coach that direction. But it will now be your coach that will inspire your team to play hard (or not). If your team has been winning, any coach can inspire such a team to keep winning, but not every coach can keep them sharp. If your team has been losing a bunch a games, it takes a good coach to get their confidence back, or maybe you’d need a new coach if your team loses respect for your coach. There are lots of angles the game developers could take with a coach, but I think creating such an element in the game, with one bold move, could simultaneously remove one of the very few questionable aspects of the game and add another integral strategic element that would make the game that much more interesting.

(In fact, if you did that, it would be much harder for other teams to figure out that you had such an agreement than it is now, since your box score and roster would have to be studied to figure out if the reserves were starting. At present, other teams can easily see if you TIE.)

whats the different betwenn tie vs tie, and ct and ct that you see it?

You're right about that. I was just making a side point and I was wrong. But philosophically, it might be better if it's obvious to others that your team didn't put out such a great effort. I mean, if the fans can tell (they probably can if a team's not playing it's hardest. I'm sure you seen a game where at least one team obviously doesn't seem interested, maybe because the game is a meaningless one, but as the fan you still think they should live up to the ticket price), then it should show up in the newspaper or the local talk radio shows, and so other teams could scout out the reality of enthusiasm. And if it's a planned TIE by both teams, it's a little bit like collusion. But I don't want this thread to to be about Enthusiasm on it's own merits, but o the coaches.

i like the approach they did on hattrick, that the TIE/CT etc. have effects on the fanbase .
But this ain't reality, and for me TIE/CT etc. is more about tactic then connection, i won't say that i never make an deal but on one deal they come 10 normal tie even cause tie normally ain't fair cause if my opponent tie at home it is my chanche to rob an away game, so i got everyweek the question did i try to win both game(home tie, away normal) or if i take the sure win and play normal @home. Without those one home game i normally got problems in the following week, and even in my league where most of the teams are on one level i got some obligatonary TIE, maybe the one out of respect against strong opponents or the one against the weaker teams.

Thats are big point of strategy, like the management of minutes(which is unrealistic too, players like Kobe usually plays all the weak here even the star trainee plays maybe 50 Minutes in 3 games), and if the coach take this out like propose and corrects wrrong tactics more(i like to play hit or miss tactics when i am the outdog like 1-3-1 etc) like propose in the first post i'll miss something in game.

Your propose with less change looks better to me, but even your connection betwenn winning and loosing and enthusiam, maybe it's realistic but it is also foresight ;) So i could get suprised by a weaker teams which just play harder, which especially makes the cup exciting. Even with the coach abilities, i'm pretty hapy that i could change team tactics and strategies a lot just in rotating my rooster and don't have the sign over my door defense win games , or inside rules because i got a coach who supports that.

Aren't the users kind of like a hybrid coach/GM's?

The users make player moves (like the team GM) and then choices players and an offensive & defensive scheme to play in the games (like the coach).


Steve
Bruins

We are, except that we can't control what's happening in the game. If we can hire coaches, we'll be more like meddling GMs or owners, sort of like Mark Cuban, or even more like the basketball version of George Steinbrenner.

What can I say? I'm a visionary, not a do-er! Just thinking long-term, something that might be a goal for the very capable developers Sometimes you just have to think outside the box a little, eh? The glass is at least half-full! You gotta think big!

Sometimes you just have to think outside the box a little, eh? The glass is at least half-full! You gotta think big!

I can understand what you think about but sometimes it is better doing step by step before you begin something new... I mine this game is so young and should be learning the first steps before it begin to run :-)