BuzzerBeater Forums

Seed has absolutely nothing to do with the relative strength of teams. I find it problematic to make any verdicts of win probabilities based on seeds.

Really? Absolutely nothing? I agree that seed might not be a perfect indicator, but the team that won more games over the span of a season will have the better team in the vast majority of the cases.

Probably. Maybe. But you won't even know how much better (hence the stress on 'relative'). The fourth seed can be almost as good as the top team (and will be, in the long run), but in some leagues it can even be a bot.

Plus, it is always possible that a stronger team lost some games because they were concentrating on the tournament.

In view of all this, I find it extremely problematic to commit to any sort of percentage probability of how often the lower seed should upset the top seed.

How often should the #4 seed be able to beat the #1 seed by playing CT vs. normal?

If, as your data suggest, the CT (vs. normal) compensates for the home court advantage... than the result is mainly up to the teams strength.
If that is the case it seems really fair to me :)

I don´t think the CT/TIE in one-game playoffs brings more gameplay, because the effect of CT is so wide and effective that tactics become less important point. The most important decision is whether to CT or Normal.

I support strongly the idea of reducing the CT/TIE effect in these games, and I would also reduce the home court advantage. It is only one die or live match, so it should be as equal as possible. This game has enough strategic depth, to make these matches interesting by themselves.

Last edited by Emilio at 4/17/2008 5:09:19 PM

I don´t think the CT/TIE in one-game playoffs brings more gameplay, because the effect of CT is so wide and effective that tactics become less important point. The most important decision is whether to CT or Normal.

I support strongly the idea of reducing the CT/TIE effect in these games, and I would also reduce the home court advantage. It is only one die or live match, so it should be as equal as possible. This game has enough strategic depth, to make these matches interesting by themselves.

If there is no home court advantage in the playoffs, then teams will be motivated to finish fourth rather than first to secure a better draft position. I just don't think this will be a good incentive.

I just said "reduce", and everybody will want to be the first of the series to have the HCA in the 3-games final.

I just said "reduce", and everybody will want to be the first of the series to have the HCA in the 3-games final.

Not if HCA doesn't give you a meaningful advantage.

You seem to be pulling in both directions since you suggested that (a) games should be as equal as possible, and (b) everybody will want HCA in the 3-games final.

These effects are linked, you can be somewhere in the middle, but you can't have both.

Last edited by GM-kozlodoev at 4/17/2008 5:23:26 PM

I understand that I write too much, so it is hard to follow all I want to say.
What I said is that it could be a good idea to reduce both CT/TIE and HCA effects for the quarter and semi-final, not the regular league and not the final.
I hope I expressed it clearer.

I understand that I write too much, so it is hard to follow all I want to say.
What I said is that it could be a good idea to reduce both CT/TIE and HCA effects for the quarter and semi-final, not the regular league and not the final.
I hope I expressed it clearer.

Well, I am a bit of a lazy reader. This sounds reasonable.

I dont think this should be the question. in my opinion the question to aks is, why we are having 1 Game series.

Why is it not possible to make play offs one week longer?
why is it not possible to have more games a week during play offs?

There are several proposals in the sugggestion forum. Some of them might have disadvantages (e.g. having 3 games a week) but any of these I like better then having 1 game series.
all we do is waiting and preparing for play offs and after one game the most exciting part is over for most of us.

The problem here is that TiE/CT is unrealistic in the playoffs but is also something that brings in more gameplay.

One solution would have been to make the playoffs have longer series, but we already fit 5 games into two weeks, and I don't think it's very possible to fit in many more than that.

Another solution would be to let TiE/CT effects be smaller either during the playoffs or overall.

I think the key question to ask, really, is this:

How often should the #4 seed be able to beat the #1 seed by playing CT vs. normal?

Without showing any disrespect to my likely 4th place opponent - he will have no option other than to CT me next week. If (subject to GS/injuries I fail to progress by normalling a) it would be disaster and b) unbelievable.)

Both teams in with a shout of 4th are almost certain to have less enthusiasm than me and if my HCA doesnt prove strong enough to do the job I will be severly disappointed and would answer a lot of my own questions on TIE/CT.

WIth a lot of people commenting they have built up such high enthusiasm and like me would be disappointed to lose to a CT it raises a different question in my opinion.

Why can / does the system allow teams to build enthusiasm so often/quickly? Everyone complains about certain aspects of the game not mimicking real life but to send your team out 7+ (just quoting 1 guy) games in a row TIE seems highly unrealistic to me as well.

I saw a post by Brian James a while back about starting with enthusiasm 10 and trying to maintain it (only using CT when required) which to me seemed much more logical.

I sympathise with teams who have enjoyed good seasons only to lose at the business end of the season to a 'Kamikaze' order from a much inferior team.