BuzzerBeater Forums

BB Global (English) > Mutual TIE request, Fair / Unfair?

Mutual TIE request, Fair / Unfair?

Set priority
Show messages by
This Post:
00
16940.27 in reply to 16940.25
Date: 2/27/2008 3:19:34 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
225225
As a whole, it is always better to have more tactical options than less, so for game play reasons the suggestion that you cite is completely unacceptable.


Not true. Two counterpoints:
1. An overly complex game won't get enough players because the learning curve is too high
2. Game play here is designed to at least resemble basketball. No such concept as TIE realistically exists in basketball. Thus, a basketball sim should not have it either.

1. Sure, I'll take it that 'the more tactics the better' is not universally true. There is a limt. I don't think this particular option qualifies as overly complicating the game, and I certainly don't agree it is better for game play to scrap it.

2. And yes, TIE does exist. Just ask the teams who go out and play the New York Knicks this season. If you apply this type of logic, then CT shouldn't exist either. If teams should choose to be able to pick up the intensity against a specific team (CT), how is it that they never choose to lower it to conserve strength (TIE)? I repeat, this happens all the time in real games. In an 82-game season teams tend to pace themselves when effort is concerned. That is why weak teams sometimes come up with surprising victories.

"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."
This Post:
00
16940.28 in reply to 16940.24
Date: 2/27/2008 3:24:24 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
225225
As a whole, it is always better to have more tactical options than less, so for game play reasons the suggestion that you cite is completely unacceptable.


Not only is it not unacceptable, it's a really good idea.


Not only is it a terrible idea, but it is also going to kill the player base in the long run. Consider: there is now a blowout rule in order to keep new teams from getting discouraged by being killed by too much in games.

Scrapping TIE will make it exponentially harder for teams that are somewhat weaker to beat stronger teams. Coupled with the fact that it is extremely difficult to promote as it is (1 of 16 teams advances) this will be a recipe for disaster.

I am not even going to go into the fact that the importance of planning how you play over the course of your season gets significantly diminished, as you're no longer able to throw certain games in order to concentrate on others.

"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."
This Post:
00
16940.29 in reply to 16940.27
Date: 2/27/2008 3:28:16 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
44
2. And yes, TIE does exist. Just ask the teams who go out and play the New York Knicks this season. If you apply this type of logic, then CT shouldn't exist either. If teams should choose to be able to pick up the intensity against a specific team (CT), how is it that they never choose to lower it to conserve strength (TIE)? I repeat, this happens all the time in real games. In an 82-game season teams tend to pace themselves when effort is concerned. That is why weak teams sometimes come up with surprising victories.


why does everyone reference the Knicks? Miami would be a better example. but that's not important. teams do pace themselves but they do not take it easy. there is always something to play for. coaches would rather pull their players than play them in a game they think is an easy win. thus the reserves play their asses off to try and gain more minutes in future games. better performance equals better contract.

i feel as though enthusiasm should be renamed pace then...but at this point we're just arguing semantics.

This Post:
00
16940.30 in reply to 16940.28
Date: 2/27/2008 3:34:39 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
303303
Not only is it a terrible idea, but it is also going to kill the player base in the long run.


I really cannot see that being a factor.

Scrapping TIE will make it exponentially harder for teams that are somewhat weaker to beat stronger teams.


Not really.

Now, stronger teams can TIE their way to a high enthusiasm rather quickly (especially if they can play mutual TIE), and once they get there it's that much harder to beat them for a team who isn't good enough to TIE any of their games.

I am not even going to go into the fact that the importance of planning how you play over the course of your season gets significantly diminished, as you're no longer able to throw certain games in order to concentrate on others.


I assume you wanted to use slightly better terminology, as I can't imagine we'd want to encourage someone to throw games.

NO ONE at this table ordered a rum & Coke
Charles: Penn has some good people
A CT? Really?
Any two will do
Any three for me
Any four will score
Any five are live
This Post:
00
16940.31 in reply to 16940.28
Date: 2/27/2008 3:47:33 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
576576
I think your underestimating even the weakest NBA teams. Even the worst teams can catch fire and beat a better team. I think the GE does a pretty good job of keeping the results random to parallel this.

It just seems wholly unrealistic that a coach would tell his team to go "take it easy" in a competitive game.

I would disagree that it's important for weaker teams to have a tool to target stronger teams and beat them. Better tactics, better training, better purchases and financial planning, these should be the tools that teams use to get better and beat stronger teams, IMO.

"Well, no ones gonna top that." - http://tinyurl.com/noigttt
This Post:
00
16940.32 in reply to 16940.30
Date: 2/27/2008 4:10:27 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
225225
Now, stronger teams can TIE their way to a high enthusiasm rather quickly (especially if they can play mutual TIE), and once they get there it's that much harder to beat them for a team who isn't good enough to TIE any of their games.

TIEing games is not a function of how good you are, but of how you plan your season. If you truly believe one should only TIE games when one has the win guaranteed, then you are probably right in your mind. I beg to differ.

I assume you wanted to use slightly better terminology, as I can't imagine we'd want to encourage someone to throw games.

The point is quite simple. If game A is more important than game B for the final rankings, I'd be happy to build up some 'team resource' in game B in order to spend it in game 'A'. It's called strategic planning. You'd be surprised how much can mean over the course of a 14-week season. How exactly do you think this is a bad idea, and why

"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."
This Post:
00
16940.33 in reply to 16940.31
Date: 2/27/2008 4:18:06 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
225225
I think your underestimating even the weakest NBA teams. Even the worst teams can catch fire and beat a better team. I think the GE does a pretty good job of keeping the results random to parallel this.

Or, translated in game terms here: even the worst team can CT and beat a stronger team that is underestimating them and Taking [the game] Easy.

The problem is that you get caught by the words. Let's put it into another perspective. Imagine it doesn't say CT and TIE, but instead this is a function of how good a pep talk the coach gives the team in the locker room, or how much time he spends drawing plays on the board.

I would disagree that it's important for weaker teams to have a tool to target stronger teams and beat them. Better tactics, better training, better purchases and financial planning, these should be the tools that teams use to get better and beat stronger teams, IMO.

Doesn't quite work, since finances are tied to division levels. Therefore, most teams in the same division are likely to have similar training material, similar ability to purchase players, and about the same financial plan.

Last edited by GM-kozlodoev at 2/27/2008 4:18:27 PM

"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."
This Post:
00
16940.34 in reply to 16940.33
Date: 2/27/2008 4:28:29 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
576576
Or, translated in game terms here: even the worst team can CT and beat a stronger team that is underestimating them and Taking [the game] Easy.


Underestimating is totally different then consciously telling your team to perform worse they there normal abilities. And then, the result of telling your team to perform worse is that they will play better than their normal ability next game.

You're relating this to something like "team confidence" in hattrick, which actually makes some sense. When you play weaker teams you're sometimes punished for being overconfident against a team, and they're is no strategic gain to that.

I understand what your saying about enthusiasm and how you use it to pace your team, but, it just doesn't jive with reality. Rotating players and keeping them in good shape (game shape!) is key to pacing your players in reality, and it's already mirrored here and currently adding to the complexity of the game.

You might prefer enthusiasm even if it's unrealistic, great, thats your opinion.

Last edited by brian at 2/27/2008 4:30:38 PM

"Well, no ones gonna top that." - http://tinyurl.com/noigttt
This Post:
00
16940.35 in reply to 16940.34
Date: 2/27/2008 4:37:07 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
225225
I don't find it unrealistic. Or to quote myself:
Let's put it into another perspective. Imagine it doesn't say CT and TIE, but instead this is a function of how good a pep talk the coach gives the team in the locker room, or how much time he spends drawing plays on the board.

I view it simply as a function of how much time and effort the coach spends to prepare his team before (or even during) a game.

Maybe you think it's the same for every competitive game - I am not sure.

"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."
This Post:
00
16940.36 in reply to 16940.35
Date: 2/27/2008 4:49:41 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
576576
Continuing with your analogy then:

If a coach does a poor job preparing the team and/or gives a bad pep talk for the game. But the next game, the coach gets back to work and prepares like he normally does, and now they play even better?

to push this further:

The coach becomes a total slacker for a week, and the team is unprepared and is not motivated by their coach. Then, he decides to get back to the usual preparation and bam, the team is several levels better. Huh?

"Well, no ones gonna top that." - http://tinyurl.com/noigttt
This Post:
00
16940.37 in reply to 16940.36
Date: 2/27/2008 5:05:13 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
225225
Continuing with your analogy then:

If a coach does a poor job preparing the team and/or gives a bad pep talk for the game. But the next game, the coach gets back to work and prepares like he normally does, and now they play even better?

to push this further:

The coach becomes a total slacker for a week, and the team is unprepared and is not motivated by their coach. Then, he decides to get back to the usual preparation and bam, the team is several levels better. Huh?

Obviously not. But on the other hand, it makes sense that the less time players spend in front of a chalk board or in a lecture room, the more enthusiastic they are about playing.

"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."
Advertisement