BuzzerBeater Forums

I agree.... I hope to win my Great 8 but at this rate anyone that finishes 4h will probably be thinking if i want another game I will have to go CT... so I have to build a strong enough team and be on enthusiasm 10/11 then hope he hasnt stacked up similar enthusiasm then go for it playing normal. If successful I then have to repeat this in round 2....or i suppose then i can use CT to all but guarantee my passage to the best of 3 final.

Although I did it last year it seems a bit silly to send your guys out in the 2nd Playoff final game and ask them to TIE! Go on boys you are 1 victory away from the title... so ease off so we can really kick butt tomorrow at our place!

I agree a change is needed... I too like the Brian James set up.

Last edited by Superfly Guy at 2/28/2008 8:19:17 PM

There is no benefit from playing CT in an elimation playoff game apart from an extra weeks takings, you leave yourself little or no chance to win the following week.

There is no benefit from playing CT in an elimation playoff game apart from an extra weeks takings, you leave yourself little or no chance to win the following week.

I think the weaker opponent just hope to win one playoff game rather than none.

Steve
Bruins!

So the strongest team always have a target on their backs, that's supposed to be news? Which part of it is supposed to be unrealistic?

the part that it is even feasible to tell your guys to TIE at the most competitive point of the season...

why dont players just use there experience to a) appreciate the magnitude and importance of the game they are going to be playing in and b) perform accordingly...

the part that it is even feasible to tell your guys to TIE at the most competitive point of the season...

why dont players just use there experience to a) appreciate the magnitude and importance of the game they are going to be playing in and b) perform accordingly...

As I have tried to explain multiple times, the existence of TIE/Normal/CT is first and foremost a strategic game play concern. Even this simple fact should be enough to justify it's persistence in the game.

Second, for some bizarre reason everyone seems to interpret TIE as 'the coach entered the locker room and told the folks to slob on the court tonight'. There are plenty of other, more reasonable ways to interpret the TIE/N/CT structure.

But what amazes me most is that people who play a game where basketball 'players' are are described with 8 discrete skills can be so united about a simple feature which is absolutely critical for game play and its realism is, at best, somewhat questionable.

TIE is a stupid face, not critical for game play.

TIE is a stupid face, not critical for game play.

Thank you for the well-reasoned opinion. I thought you were done arguing with me.

Last edited by GM-kozlodoev at 2/28/2008 10:47:44 PM

As I have tried to explain multiple times, the existence of TIE/Normal/CT is first and foremost a strategic game play concern. Even this simple fact should be enough to justify it's persistence in the game.

i disagree. There may be strategy involved in TIE/Normal/CT, but it has nothing to do with basketball.

Consider the following situation. i have a cup game against a bot, so I play my B team and rest all of my A team guys. After that, I have a league game, so I play my A team. Now, if I TIE the cup game, I'll have an enthusiasm boost for the league game, whereas if I normal, I don't get a boost, and if I CT, I lose enthusiasm.

As it stands, the attitude I use for the B team in the cup game directly affects the performance level of my A team in the league game. That feels very artificial to me.

There is no A team and B team in BB. Last time I checked, you only had one.

I have previously proposed a very simple interpretation of what the team attitude: the time and effort that the coach spends on preparing the team tactically: that would be sitting in a room, drawing stuff on the board, watching tapes from previous games and going through all sorts of team tactics. The direct result is that the team, as a unit, is less prepared for the following game if less time is spent or that (in game terms: team ratings are worse). On the other hand, since basketball players like to play basketball and not spend time in 'classes', the less they do that the more excited they get.

I feel kind of silly explaining this stuff over and over. Regardless of popular opinion, this is a managerial game, not a sports simulation. As such, it has to be flexible enough to allow players to actually manage their teams. If you want to reduce game management to fielding the best five players before, go ahead and do it. I don't think it is going to be particularly interesting in the long run.

As for the 'real feel', it feels very artificial to me that there is no option where players can go to the bar at night and get stabbed, or locked up for DUI, or die by a heart attack on the court. Likewise, we don't see brawls on the court or in the locker room. I mean, it has happened multiple times in the NBA season. Yep, it is probably 'realistic'. But is it really necessary for the game? Probably not.

I think I am done yapping for now. Fire away.

Last edited by GM-kozlodoev at 2/29/2008 1:15:28 AM

of course we have 1 team (but I agree we often think A/B or 1st team and reserves) and as one of the primary ways to create cash is to train players you cant just have 5/6 great players and ignore the rest....

again a thread of mixed opinions and as long as the rules are there for everyone and we get advanced notice of major changes lets just accept and play on...

it seems that when an opinion on part of the game is overwhelming opposed by the boards then alterations have a chance of being made... so lets just see how this plays out..