1) Should the amount of rivalries be purely random?
I'm not sure. Ususally, the richer teams and those that had enough reputation at a league will get more rivals along the seasons.
I think this should also be the case here.
2) Should the rivalries identity be purely random?
Again - I think it should not.
In this case, I believe that teams that "knows" each other more, are more likely to be rivals.
It looks to me it is usually what happens in BB, both points.
As previously said, it is not random and usually predictable.
If I understand you correct, when you're saying BB you mean this site, and not as Basket-Ball (AKA real teams). In this case, I'm glad that it works as I think it should.
3) Should rivalry be a bi-directional thing?
Of course it should.
I don't know a team who their fans finds another team as their rival, but not the other way around.
The team shown is the main rival.
It doesn't mean the fans don't find another as a rival too, just a less important rival.
Only one is used in calculations.
"It is what it is", but should it be as it is...
And with a littl bit more elaboration - I think that Rival should not be a single name of a rival team, but a list aff all relevant rivalries in the league.
Currently it is true that it is a single team, but I think it shouldn't be so...
4) It was said that currently there can be 0, 1 or 2 rivalries altogether.
But it is not exactly representing the whole story.
Currently each team can have 0, 2 or 4 games where the other team will try harder (and maybe will have higher audience influence).
Why not defining the rivalry to be from the second conference?
By that, it will at least have less affect.
You always play your rival twice, home and away. Always.
I'm not sure about that... [Regarding the real world]
I'm not sure that every rivalry in the NBA plays the same amount of games home and away against each other, and if we will look at the NFL, I will say that I'm even sure that they don't.
In any case, due to the way things are right now, it will make it a little more fair having less games that has you
may face someone who will put a little extra.
This is why it is one of your conference's team.
What's the problem in teams try to win against you ? It's a kind of ridiculous complaint :)
I wouldn't CT a team just because it is a rival. If I have a reasonable but not too certain chance to win playing normal, I would factor it amongst many other factors included in my schedule strategy. And my opponent will do the same, it's complex. It adds flavor. It is not meant to be 100% fair. It shuffles the cards a bit sometimes.
I find the effect on influence very small anyway and the rivalry is more of a 'colour' feature to me.
I don't know if teams usually really try harder against their rival, I actually rarely do.
The mark above at "may" was for this part.
Yes, it is true. It may not...
But the thing is that it may so, and that is the all point of this "Rivalry" here...
If it did not meant anything, then we would not had this conversation...
REMARK - I have only one rivalry this season.
You always have one rival. Always.
But 0, 1 or 2 teams will have you as a rival, it's a bit different.
That is what I've meant... There is only one team that I'm her rival. "Only one extra risk..."
Last edited by Pini פיני at 2/10/2012 6:44:42 PM