BuzzerBeater Forums

Suggestions > Giving up and setting a TIE agreement

Giving up and setting a TIE agreement

Set priority
Show messages by
This Post:
00
64255.14 in reply to 64255.13
Date: 12/15/2008 2:55:07 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
959959
he should learn from it, and it was easier for me to ask again ...

Instead of copying the link, pasting him in a txt , looking for thread id and put it in again here.

This Post:
00
64255.15 in reply to 64255.3
Date: 12/15/2008 6:27:40 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
154154
Like adomole, I'm a team whose opponents often TIE and/or play their second teams. I generally TIE against those teams as well, since I know I'm probably going to win even if they try their hardest.
​
If your change was implemented, I'd still win and I'd still TIE. No difference. But the weaker teams would either have their income or their enthusiasm punished.
​
So, this would build in an advantage for the stronger teams. I don't think that's a good idea.


What he said.

On second teams -since trainng needs minutes and game shape is more or less influenced by minutes played I don't see why anyone shouldn't play any players he/she wants.

This Post:
00
64255.16 in reply to 64255.10
Date: 12/15/2008 6:40:02 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
154154
Why punish yourself twice?!

This Post:
00
64255.17 in reply to 64255.16
Date: 12/16/2008 6:38:52 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
404404
Why punish yourself twice?!

??

From: Blacksword

To: Ehud
This Post:
00
64255.18 in reply to 64255.1
Date: 1/17/2009 8:00:34 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
1010
I think that instead for the 3 options now...then creating some kind of slider that lets you set the effort from 1-10 where 1=TIE and 10=CT would add some strategic depth to this. And there should be no mention in the game summary on how this was set.




I dont think mutual TIEs are that bad, except it really take away some depth of the game, as a mutual TIE is almost always an advantage for both teams.

I think giving some kind of punishment for loosing at TIE could work, because as some have already said, some people throw games away that they could have won using Normal. I have seen several games this season where Top teams in the Danish League just got away with a win even though the other team TIE'd it.

This Post:
00
64255.19 in reply to 64255.18
Date: 1/17/2009 8:50:14 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
1919
I think giving some kind of punishment for loosing at TIE could work, because as some have already said, some people throw games away that they could have won using Normal. I have seen several games this season where Top teams in the Danish League just got away with a win even though the other team TIE'd it.

Not sure I follow this. If you TIE and lose, compared to a Normal and win, then why is there a need for punishment? You've already been punished by losing a game you should've won.

This Post:
00
64255.20 in reply to 64255.19
Date: 1/17/2009 10:07:55 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
1010
Not sure I follow this. If you TIE and lose, compared to a Normal and win, then why is there a need for punishment? You've already been punished by losing a game you should've won.


Agree on this.

But I was actually thinking that if they knew they would be 'punished' if TIE'ing and loosing, maybe few teams would not just throw away games against stronger opponents.

This Post:
00
64255.21 in reply to 64255.20
Date: 1/17/2009 10:23:30 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
959959
this team could tie there home games against weaker teams, where is the problem ;)

This Post:
00
64255.22 in reply to 64255.20
Date: 1/17/2009 10:24:16 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
9696
I think that instead for the 3 options now...then creating some kind of slider that lets you set the effort from 1-10 where 1=TIE and 10=CT would add some strategic depth to this. And there should be no mention in the game summary on how this was set.


not only will this needlessly complicate things for most users, it will strenghten the mutual TIE effect even more, since teams who mutual TIE will both set it at lowest, which will give both the highest possible advantage...
I don't think the ones who are oposing the mutual TIE now, will settle down when this is implemented, on the contrary...

(note that I do not express any opinion about mutual TIE, I'm just indicating the likely result)

They are not your friends; they dispise you. I am the only one you can count on. Trust me.
This Post:
00
64255.23 in reply to 64255.20
Date: 1/17/2009 2:28:03 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
1919
Not sure I follow this. If you TIE and lose, compared to a Normal and win, then why is there a need for punishment? You've already been punished by losing a game you should've won.


Agree on this.

But I was actually thinking that if they knew they would be 'punished' if TIE'ing and loosing, maybe few teams would not just throw away games against stronger opponents.

So then you punish them for trying to give their team a better shot (by TIEing instead of Normaling the current game) of winning their following game?

This Post:
00
64255.24 in reply to 64255.20
Date: 1/18/2009 10:05:10 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
404404
solution for a TIE agreement?Pretend to agree it and after plays normal

Advertisement