BuzzerBeater Forums

Back to the old prisoners dillemma:D

Will both be honest? If one is honest he risks that the other player cheats and thus he loses. If one cheats and the other also cheats he could still win. Plus if the other is honest you win most certainly. So it's still a risk acting like this.
I personally try to win as much as I can early in the season so that I can plan TIE's (and losses) later on (although I already played TIE 3 times already and won all).

I think they're dumb.

What he said.

What they said, add all of the current 'enthusiasm' rules, and double my disgust.

I think they're dumb.

What he said.

What they said, add all of the current 'enthusiasm' rules, and double my disgust.

Ditto!

my first thought was as most reacted: why should it be illegal? nothing wrong with it, after all it is risky.

However, on second thought, such practices might lead to a next step, and a next, until finaly we might come to something like this: Say the first division teams manage to form a 'group' over a few seasons, a group of 8 teams (half the competition) who make all kinds of arrangements in order to try to get all 8 into the playoffs.

The first could loose to the 5 th on purpose so the 5 th could pass by the 4th.
They could make sure to try to win every game agains the 'outsiders' and thus assuring their select group to stay in Div I for the years to come . Should something go wrong their 'friend' will probably still end up in 5 th place, so they could still stay in Div I.

Sadly, in fact, I fear not much could be done against these things...

As the stereotype would figure, Americans seem much more likely to just let the game play out with as little intervention and changes by the designers as possible. Europeans seem much more likely to want changes because of the possibility that collusion could undermine the game.

hm, let me protest here.

Mostly I disagree of changes sugested by managers, unless I find it truly worthy of putting programming time into the idea... You can check the sugestions forums for my posts. ;)

But maybe, averaged out, this might be the case, don't know, didn't notice it yet.

Do not get me wrong, I stick to my thought that mutual TIe agreements are not wrong. I simply look further into the future. Be aware of the creativity-ness of a human brain.

My example is not so imaginary, it is perfectly possible, and I think even rather easy for a group of exact 8 people to make an agreement like that. There is also no problem of the group becomming bigger and concurention greater, since they agree to not let anyone else in. As the play-offs start they can start playing a real competition among each other to see who becomes champion, and might or might not agree that every other year someone else gets homecourt...
Should 1 person fail to follow the group-rules for own gain, he might be pushed out of the group...

This said, again, I still think, even if we wanted too, that not much could be done if a group decided to melt together. Who is going to judge that it is not in a teams' managers best insight the things that he does on tactical choices?

Of course it happens, and will continue to happen as long as the current enthusiasm system is in place. There is simply no negative to this as it stands, unless one participant Normals or CTs instead of holding up his end of the bargain.

Here is the line of thinking:

- CT'ing during the regular season is dumb, because you'll likely lose your next 1-2 games. Scratch CT as an option.

- Now our option is to either TIE or Normal. If I want to TIE, of course I want the other team to TIE as well. It will increase my chance of winning. He has incentive to TIE as well, because...

- If we DON'T mutual TIE, we are both just going to Normal. Right now, technically, a game with both teams TIE'ing or both teams Normal'ing should have the same anticipated result. Also, Normal'ing decreases our performance in the next game, while TIE'ing increases it.

Mutal TIE'ing is a no brainer, really - BUT THE FACT THAT IT IS A NO-BRAINER IS DUMB DUMB DUMB.


If BB would just institute brianjames's recommendation for enthusiasm, all of this would be gone. I can't find the link right now, but I'll try to summarize:

- Enthu starts at 10
- No more TIE's
- Only options are Normal and CT.
- CT lowers Enthu, but then it slowly rises on it's own until it is back to 10.
- The effects of CT remain the same in regards to game performance.

I personally hope that mutual TIE'ing becomes standard, because then maybe that will help BB realize how silly and pointless the whole TIE system is.

Considering the number of anti-HT folks I've run across in BuzzerBeater, I'm surprised that this abomination from hattrick is being used so commonly.

Steve

It has nothing to do with anti-HT or pro-HT. The main point is that it makes too much sense to do - but that can be changed as I showed above.

I just hope they don't take a kneejerk reaction and "Ban Mutual TIEs" (which is imposible to regulate as stated by someone above). They should instead adopt a new enthu system like brianjames idea or something similiar.