BuzzerBeater Forums

There is no problem with TIEs. Everyone TIEs at their one risk, as they're giving the other team a free ticket to win the game if they Normal, agreement or not.

YEAH
Thank goodness Kozlodev is back!! and no surprise he sides with the TIE community!

I like LA-Moutlinho's idea... although i copy GM-Damenas strategy it is only because I have to until i lose in the BB3... i cant imagine getting penalised harder on the fan front... its incredible how short memory supporters have at the moment anyway!

And thanks goodness there are still people who are ready to jump the gun and attack the person and not the idea. But then again, I've been called so many names in this conference that I am starting to think moderation for personal attacks doesn't exist. Some example you set as a GM. At least you didn't compare me to Paula Abdul on Music Idol, that's courtesy of another user.

I wonder why you would think I 'side with the TIE community'. For the record, I've TIEd every single non-playoff game up to now by virtue of being the stronger side. So yeah, I have little use for mutual TIEs and I can guarantee you right here that I am not going to enter in such an agreement for as long as I play BB. There.

As for ebustelo's idea, here's what the problem is: one of the major purposes of TIE is to give you strategic planning. Sure, you TIE the games where you are the guaranteed winner, but you also TIE games where you're the guaranteed loser. As someone mentioned above me, this so-called "suggestion" (which, mind you, specifically called for a significant loss of fans after a TIE loss) will hurt people who play the game the legit way much more than it will hurt the mutual "TIE-ers". Someone above me mentioned the same thing, but then again, he is not me, so no bashing ensued.

So yeah, I am sorry. I don't belong to the TIE community. I happen to be a part of the thinking community, though. I am very sorry that you don't like it, but next time please refrain from personal remarks and concentrate on the issue at hand. Thanks.

Last edited by GM-kozlodoev at 6/4/2008 3:49:52 PM

Don't listen to kozlodoev, he's the Kaiser Soze of the TIE Movement. In fact, he wrote the template, that's why it is so eloquent.

sincere apologies - in no way shape or form was this intended as a slant or slight on you or your character and continuously constructive comments you regularly post.

There is no problem with TIEs. Everyone TIEs at their one risk, as they're giving the other team a free ticket to win the game if they Normal, agreement or not.

then, there was no problem with the daytrading, playoffs and all the other things effected by the updates..
updates are done to make the game more realistic and it is really disturbing me to see all the BBB teams putting the same effort into the games..
please read my Galatasaray example again and tell me if it is unrealistic to reduce attendances in that way..

I've read your Galatasaray example very carefully: "if a team plays TIE and loses, there should be a significant attendance drop". Significant attendance drop is not a good solution, realistic or not, for the reasons I mentioned already.

Sure, adjustments in attendance based on CT/TIE are possible, and maybe even useful. They have been implemented in other games, though the jury is still out on how well it works. But 'significant' consequences should come for 'significant' actions, not a simple TIE loss.

I agree with the Kaiser. the reason the Galatasaray example doesn't work is because it would really hurt new teams. Right now, if you are playing a team that you have no chance against, it is smart to TIE so you have more enthu for games you can win. This would penalize weaker teams that make this wise decision.

Wow - since I started this lil ole post, I figured I would be back on the original topic which centered around the benefits received in this BBB tourney. To me, it's been shown that while yes, there may be issues with the amount of games played, strategic teams (with the appropriate sort of BB mojo) can navigate these waters and create a minor windfall.

This is a tournament that should be played in arcade mode at a base attitude level.
I say this because while watching the KDB/BC Torro match, I couldn't help but think if the game was prearranged and if it wasn't why should attitude matter in a game like this. It was a heck of a game until the 5point play late in the 4th opened the floodgates. Those are the types of games I think all of us would want to see and then we could spread the acolades approriately.
We can also see the players as they truely are and then reward the couragous winner of this event who would of had to navigate the matches and would allow this tournament to be kept within the guidlines in which all things are earned in BB.

By awarding them 10% to 20% all the common rewards associated with the game, the teams will get their just reward while the rest of us get to see a true slugfest.

Playing the tournament in arcade mode would more likely penalize the first division teams that didn't make the BB3 tournament. Because of having to spread out the top players and having to play TIE, those teams have a chance to knock off the BB3 teams and get ahead in the race for HCA in the playoffs. For example, in my league, the Sculpins have lost 3 league games due to BB3, when they would likely be undefeated if they were playing BB3 in arcade mode. Even in the controversial TIE conference in the US, next year, when there are only 2 US teams (instead of 5), the non-BB3 teams will have the incentive to not play mutual TIES (why commit yourself to TIE when you know the other team has to TIE?), knowing that the best way to get ahead of the BB3 teams is clinch HCA and win in the playoffs, which would then result in a future BB3 invite.