BuzzerBeater Forums

Suggestions > Enthusiasm

Enthusiasm

Set priority
Show messages by
This Post:
00
84039.3 in reply to 84039.2
Date: 4/1/2009 4:18:37 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
00
Well something needs to be done. Its no fun what so ever if i'm going to have to resort to TIEing every game just to keep a level playing field. I'd rather play a stand-up kind of game. I dont think thats why the BB's brought the ability to TIE or CT in for.

Another solution could be to make injury likelyhood go up exponentially with every consecutive TIE.

This Post:
00
84039.5 in reply to 84039.4
Date: 4/1/2009 4:22:09 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
00
well it would stop people TIEing every game consecutively. sure your enthusiasm will go up but all your good players maybe injured to get there.

This Post:
00
84039.6 in reply to 84039.2
Date: 4/1/2009 9:09:47 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
00
. For example, if you TIE every game, then at one point it will start having barely any effect on your enthusiasm. Thoughts?


it already works like that. At tweleve you can TIE but it will be back at 13 or so by your next game. There is a hard cap (15)

From: dennis54

This Post:
00
84039.8 in reply to 84039.3
Date: 4/2/2009 12:10:05 AM
Balls of Steel
III.15
Overall Posts Rated:
147147
Another solution could be to make injury likelyhood go up exponentially with every consecutive TIE.


seems counter-intuitive. as people take it easy they get hurt? no.
maybe a loss of 5% training?
maybe a drop in attendance next home game (as the team does not play hard)

but really, I would like the system the way it is.

From: hoo-cee
This Post:
00
84039.9 in reply to 84039.8
Date: 4/2/2009 5:28:12 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
106106
How about if you TiE, then you'll have a smaller chance to win that game? Oh, wait...

This Post:
00
84039.10 in reply to 84039.8
Date: 4/4/2009 6:29:56 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
122122
[
maybe a loss of 5% training?
maybe a drop in attendance next home game (as the team does not play hard)

I think these two are best proposed till now cos they are quite logical.
If the team plays TIE = it will affect skills for sure
It will also affect attendance as well

I'm against the increasing chances for injury. It can make people stop using the TIE so often but can make them stop playing as well ... and we do not want that ...

Last edited by LA-popeye91 at 4/4/2009 6:30:29 AM

Fair play!!!
This Post:
00
84039.11 in reply to 84039.10
Date: 4/6/2009 4:32:56 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
00

maybe a drop in attendance next home game (as the team does not play hard)


What about this situation: I TIE'd my last competition game and still won with 128-78. I don't think my fans will be unlucky because my team played a bit more relaxed...

Climbing the BB-mountain. Destination: the top.
From: Borislav

This Post:
00
84039.12 in reply to 84039.1
Date: 4/7/2009 5:24:10 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
4545
I agree it's no good as it is. It's more a case of being-stupid-if-you-don't-build-enthusiasm-in-the-beginning-of-the-season rather than a strategic element IMO. The conference disparity you refer to is also a problem, although that would probably even out over time as (at least top) divisions stack up with good teams.

I don't like the idea of a cap on number of times however, but what about reducing the ladder. That is, setting the assumed hard cap to, say 10, rather than the current 15. You could then only max your enthusiasm going into a game to say 8-9, making it possible for a teams with lower enthusiasm to take a jab at any opponent using CT?

E.g. team A at enthusiasm 8 chooses to TIE against a presumed weaker opponent B, which at enthusiasm 5 (having only played normal in all games) opts to CT. Producing A:8-2=6 vs B:5+2=7 going into the game.

Advertisement