BuzzerBeater Forums

I don't think it would work...
I see a lot of games played TIE in my country, some managers play tie almost exclusively...
and some teams play TIE against teams they know they can't win even with CT, and those teams will also play TIE all the time
so that way people would get punished for choosing a strategy for their team.

Personally I would not implement that either, but it is one of the possible solutions. In my opinion should be punished somehow these which play TIE TIE TIE all the time like I suggested above. This would partially solve even problem with mutual TIE, because would not be so profitable to lack the match over and over again. Even if it would not be so realistic or whatever.

In my opinion should be punished somehow these which play TIE TIE TIE all the time like I suggested above.

Why? Then I would be punished too, I'll play 3 Normals during regular season in the league and maybe some in the cup depending on the adversary. Why should I be punished then?

Last edited by Kivan at 12/28/2009 11:39:40 AM

Because you have to behave. :o)

I don't think it would work...
I see a lot of games played TIE in my country, some managers play tie almost exclusively...
and some teams play TIE against teams they know they can't win even with CT, and those teams will also play TIE all the time
so that way people would get punished for choosing a strategy for their team.

Personally I would not implement that either, but it is one of the possible solutions. In my opinion should be punished somehow these which play TIE TIE TIE all the time like I suggested above. This would partially solve even problem with mutual TIE, because would not be so profitable to lack the match over and over again. Even if it would not be so realistic or whatever.

at least in the playoff i play normal or ct ;)

:P I behave, tie, and win
if I get into the top division I won't tie all the time, I rarely will...
well when I know my opponent will tie because he thinks he'll win, and uses second team saving the first one for the cup, then I will tie with first lineup

I agree with you all the mutually agreed TIEs should be addressed but not at the expense of the system or other managers that don't do it

Look, the basic question should be - which kind of strategy should be more profitable? Now it is the strategy which allows you boost your performance even more just because you (hypotetically) have stronger team than 80 percent of the league. The point that you can cumulate your team spirit for a long time and use it whenever you want without any worries about any kind of impact to your team means, that the way it is now is pretty boring.

Look, the basic question should be - which kind of strategy should be more profitable? Now it is the strategy which allows you boost your performance even more just because you (hypotetically) have stronger team than 80 percent of the league. The point that you can cumulate your team spirit for a long time and use it whenever you want without any worries about any kind of impact to your team means, that the way it is now is pretty boring.

if you remove the possibilitie for other teams, to beat them because they play with same effort will give him a bigger advantage.

I dont think that it would be like that. You can still cumulate your "power", but you have to more think about when and how. Thats why should be that thing "measured" on long-term. I can imagine that if you play CT then, you can start to cumulate again. This all is just about that you would think about yours team attitude more like about a "living been" which will turn into disadvantage if you just do the same thing.

Last edited by aigidios at 12/28/2009 12:03:35 PM

with the current effort system you could compensate quality with effort, and if that team is that superior that he wins every game with TIE vs a normal, he won't loose with normal vs normal, and if you have a team which could beat him he should be able to play tie too - but if he don't risk wins against those teams like the superior team you are afraid of , he get a disadvantage aginst the superior team who play tie in direct confrontation.

you mean like Roger Federer?
or Schumacher some time ago?
sometimes you just don't need to put too much effort in a game and play relaxed... tie isn't lack of effort, it's just a more relaxed approach to the game, avoiding injuries, avoiding running three feet behind a guy who's gonna dunk a fastbreak and losing stamina and so on...

This is a good point, however the enthusiasm mechanism is not really implemented in accordance to rhis, or at least the effects of the effort (TIE/normal/CT) are not related to your list. Currently teams that TIE gain enthusiasm independently of the outcome of the game. In reality no team would gain enthusiasm if they lost a game just because their coach told them before the game that "they should not really care too much". Instead if you lost a game with a few points after putting less effort than you could have, then you ar probably more likely to loose more enthusiasm (as you know you could have done a lot better then you did).

In fact, the reason that coaches in real life chooses to put less effort in some games has nothig to do with enthusiasm, but with other effects, mainly like injuries and game shape as you already mentioned.

The "game shape effect" is already partly availble in the game by other mechanisms (time management and selection of coach type). The same could be said about the "injury effect" (coach type and doctor). However, their is a possibility of adding a dimension to this; if TIE/normal/CT affected injuries and game shape rather than enthusiasm the mechanism would be more logical and tactical appealing in my opinion.

For instance if you tell your players to TIE a game, playing too many minutes would not affect game shape as bad, and the players would be less affected by injuries (and perhaps training would not be as efficient due to the lacj of effort), while if you play CT your players would probably loose more game shape and be more subject to injuries.