BuzzerBeater Forums

Couldn't you effectively end agreements like this by giving no enthusiasm bonus if both teams TIE?

I realize there is some downside to this...but just thought I throw it out there.


Steve
Bruins




Last edited by Solana_Steve at 2/27/2008 8:13:57 PM

Couldn't you effectively end agreements like this by giving no enthusiasm bonus is both teams TIE?

I realize there is some downside to this...but just thought I throw it out there.

A sensible idea, easy to implement, one would think.

As to the realism of TIE, of course it is not realistic.

Recent NBA seasons have several 'piling it on' complaints where losers have whined about teams leaving stars in despite 20+ point leads, or making showoff dunk shots in the waning moments of blowout victories. Hardly a TIE mind-set, is it?

Further, in reality, if a team has dogged it the first half of a game it should win easily, the coach will ream out the team at half time, and any sense of TIE will be gone. (Although the team may still lose, of course.) Losing a TIE game as a benefit for the long haul is silly.

Couldn't you effectively end agreements like this by giving no enthusiasm bonus if both teams TIE?

I realize there is some downside to this...but just thought I throw it out there.


Steve
Bruins

I'd be angry if I TIEd and received no benefit if the other team, unknown to me, TIEd also.

Except the magnitude of this effect is severely diminished, because the better teams won't be able to TIE. That's my point.

Actually, that's our point.

Right now, all the best teams are TIE'ing almost every game. So when we do run into a minnow, our enthu is so high that even an ill-conceived CT on the minnow's part (which would result in them losing subsequent games against lesser competition) would not result in a "shock" victory for the minnow.

That's the first good point you've made.

You think it is a good point because you misunderstood what I said. If you're a weak team and you're playing a good team, your chances to beat him are diminished by the fact that there is one level of intensity less - i.e. if you CT vs. Normal you're worse off than if you CT vs. TIE.

The fact that half of the teams have completely no clue how to manage their enthusiasm over the course of the season is completely beside the point.

The people who "have no clue how to manage their enthusiasm" should not listen to your advice on how to do so.

CT'ing against the best teams, killing your chance of beating beatable teams? Are you mad?

I'd be angry if I TIEd and received no benefit if the other team, unknown to me, TIEd also.


How angry ??!!

As for the idea of 8 teams colluding that is just utter madness... lets be freinds - oh its your season to win??!! ha

I favour the TIE as it allows me to play TIE with better players and Normal with squaddies... no one has mentioned you have to juggle game minutes throughout the squad and the different options allow you to do this more effectively.

Lastly....on the actual topic of mutual TIEs. Ive played once (and lost!) like this and may be up for repeating but again i dont think anyone in this thread has mentioned the potential effect on losing a game and the spill over this has to attendence...

Id be interested to learn whether playing normal and racking up a 15 game odd winning streak has more monetary advantages (crowd and PR guy) vs losing 1 or 2 here or there to keep enthusiasm high.

Someone did mention its good to come out the blocks firing on all cylinders (which even after my start still only leaves me 1 win up on my 2 big 8 Rivals..who ive got to play away again for the second season in a row - but thats another story) then you can plan to build enthusiasm for the playoffs...

The "brianjames" solution is the best answer I've seen to this issue in a webgame.

The whole TIE / CT mechanic is one of my least favourite items in management games like this. You get friends forming TIE cartels to take down their non-friends. People colluding to prevent unpopular people from promoting or to cause them to demote. All sorts of things that you just don't need. What do you gain? Marginally greater tactical options that are difficult to balance.

The people who "have no clue how to manage their enthusiasm" should not listen to your advice on how to do so.

CT'ing against the best teams, killing your chance of beating beatable teams? Are you mad?

I don't know where you get this from. I am not an cannot be giving advice on anything, since how you plan your season is contingent on what sort of players you have, who the opposition is, and how the season schedule pans out.

However, it seems like people here were trying to push the notion that 'only strong teams can TIE', which is universally incorrect.

Is this considered a legal activity or collusion?

It does not really pass the smell test, but I know it happens with some teams and top-level leagues. The evidence is pretty clear when you look at the game reports.

Is there an official BB position on this?

How is this?

I read somewhere else that the effect of playing TIE cannot be seen on the stats.