BuzzerBeater Forums

The claim Pini פיני is doing is the same some managers have had with the Spanish NT. I think it's a legitimate claim even though I don´t personally care.
I think the managers should have the possibility to make their players not eligible for the NT, so the NT coach (and the staff, friends and the rest of the country) can't peek at them.

1) A break even rule makes no sense in my opinion. in 95% of all cases the NT manager is just doing his job that his peers have elected for him to do. Sure there is the other 5% that could be abusing their power, but I feel like the general public would abuse this right to see one of the NT manager's players much more than the NT coach.

2) With the varying strengths of all the nations in BB and once again, the use of tracking players training and skill progression, I don't believe there is a viable option to implement this to work well.

3)

One damage is still a damage - Even if one team will be exploited, it is enough for handling this.
Waiting season and an half may be OK for you, but that manager may quit.

I'm a little confused. Which manager are you talking about? The NT manager or the manager with the NT player? In both aspects, I still don't understand the issue. If they quit, they quit, but I highly doubt these actions that you are talking about become a cause for a manager to quit the game. Butterfly effect although being an interesting take on things, I also don't believe is actually an issue. Knowing the skills of one player will not likely be the reason for a win or loss.

4) Uh, what? It is the same exact situation, so I don't think you can play it off as if it is different. NT players might not be that important on that team either then.

My favorite analogy to your argument:
If one person gets drunk and beats someone to death with a tuba that they found on the street for an unknown reason, You don't take away all the tubas in the world and you don't take away all the alcohol, you just punish the individual for not doing what they were suppose to. You are suggesting the opposite and saying that NT managers shouldn't be able to see players to evaluate them or have to have other rules put in place to control them, simply because one manager is abusing his power. This is much like taking tubas and alcohol away from the general public simply because one psycho was making poor decisions. If that makes sense.

I'm not sure that I wiill write too many posts from now on (as a decision).
Just no use on the BB environment (and I will not elaborate on what I am realating).
But I will answer your questions and points raised.

1) The break-even rule is besides the point of misusing power.
It deals with the unfairness that is given to an NT-Manager over his league's peers.
It is not important whether it is done s part of the NT-M job or not.
He sees a player stats. Why shouldn't the team that been peeked do the same to one of his?
[Again, at least, in case they are on the same league]

2) It is far from being hard to implement the Is-Legit rule.
You (SW) compare last year NT players to the requested player, and define the limitations upon that.

There are so few players that are on the same league and get peekes, that a GM (from another natioon) could be the approval of the peek.

3) Information about a player is an advantage.
Otherwise, why not approving the "break-even" peek?

A manager that will lose due to that, or feel it affected the score, may decide that it is a waste of time playing especially when it creates "butterfly effect".
The "butterfly effect" on this case will be - not getting to the playoff, getting into elimination games, affecting other teams that define the week / league strategy upon expected scode, etc.

4) NT players are high payed players that represent their NT team, which means they are high level players.
There are some very small country that this might not be applied, but usually this player will be (one) of the most important players on that team.

U21 NT players may be or not be top players on that team, as they are paid much less.

5) Your analogy is quite off.
There are laws that don't give allow individual to have guns without getting them licensed.
There are limitations on things that may lead to violence.
Sometimes a person that should not hold a gun will get it, and sometimes the opposite (a person that should be allowed to hold a gun will NOT get the licence). But it is far better than just allowing all to have them.

And yes, I know that the US laws about that are a bit different.
You can change it to Alcohol and having drunk 10yo on the streets in case no limitation on that topic.

1) Break-even rule - in case you see a player of a team from your league, let the other team peek on one of your players (with the closest salary, for example).

2) Is-Legit rule - Like in the case of that player, one should not be able, on any means, to peek on a player that cannot be NT-legit.
Who defines who is legit for a peek?


3) One damage is still a damage - Even if one team will be exploited, it is enough for handling this.
Waiting season and an half may be OK for you, but that manager may quit.


4) U21 NT players are less scary on that sense.
As U21 NT might not be that important on that team.

Don't take this personal, as I do not wish to offend you. It seems to me you have gathered some frustration/iritation for a really small issue, and you are just being "tunnel-visioned" on you own personal feelings. It honestly aches me that an Israeli user with such high-end U21 and NT staff(U21 Israel is nr 1 seed in consolation tournament, NT is ranked 22 in the world) may make such bold(to say the least) statements. So really, take a nice breath of air before you continue.


However...

1) Any half-decent U21/NT manager will let you peak any member of his team, mainly because this is usually a person dedicated to sacrifice stuff for the better of the community. However, this request is ridiculous and somewhat childish. You are not gonna win or lose if you know the skills of one or two players. Plus, as an U21/NT manager you do not
have the necessary time to wait for each and every manager to update the skills(some people don't have the time to even read BB-Mail).

2) Again - ridiculous. On what basis do you decide that your guy is not NT worthy? So you gonna buy a key guy out of frustration and deem him unworthy of NT? This is feasible for you?

3) Damage is a harsh word. Exploit is even harsher. Knowing the skills of one-two players is hardly an exploitation.

4) Your lack of interest in some things astonishes me. I will tell you this. Ask you kind U21 manager to give you a peak on his best U21 guys. I can guarantee you they are scary.




Last edited by Boston Celts at 6/30/2015 6:22:03 AM

I'm not offended easily.

I am not even the one who got exploitedly "peeked".

The ISRs' NT are not a success, compared to NT community size, etc.
But that is beside the point and just relating to what you've written.
What this first lines come to say is that I think it is an issue and far from me being "tunnel-visioned" due to personal event related to the topic.

-----
Regarding your four counter points;
1) You contradict yourself multiple times.
a) You are saying that they will give the peek anyhow, but we should not enforce it.
b) You say that it will not give to much advantage, but you find it not fair to give the same "not too much advantage" to the team that had been peeked.

In addition, we mainly speak about the time before season starts.
This period is when there are a lot of candidates, and it is hard to get all information in time and process it.
This is why the "break-even" rule gives the counter peek only to teams that are on the same league as the NT manager.

During the season, the list is much shorter, and then there is just no reason to say that the NT-manager "can't wait".
In addition, it is much less likely that he will peek a player just for the sake of gathering information of an opponent he has on his league.

And once again, none of the cases is not a reason why "break-even" rule is not fair.

2) Does a player if 1K is NT worthy on basically any NT?
This is just taking your question to the extreme.
Of course it is possible to set a limitation rule comparing current NT players with the player NT-manager requests to peek at.

The other half of the argument I just did not understood.

3) "Knowledge is power." And it is even not my line...
If there is no advantage in that then how can you be against the "break-even" rule?

4) Again, I'm not sure I understood your whole claim, but you surely not saying that an NT player who is being trained until age of 26 (and beyond) is comparable to a U21 NT player, who by definition has less than four sesons of training.

-----
So to have this conversation focused, I will re-iterrate the main points;
a) "Break-even" rule
If peeking a single player does not give advantage, there is no reason not to give counter-peek for the team that had been poked.
If it does give advantage, then by all means it is not fair to give one team advantage over the other. Which is also a point that supports this part of the suggestion.

b) "Is-Legit" rule
To minimize exploitinig the role, this rule will define which players on the same league as the NT-manager could be peeked w/o the approval of its manager.

This comes as a second priority to the first rule.

It keeps getting to the same "so what" argument.
This ("so what") argument is as good argument to any topic.

It is something that may, and did, cause damage.
The Spaniard did pointed that it is far from being a local or personal issue. And we cannot say that it is a small community or something close to that. can we?

In addition, and as said, it is not my player that had been peeked, and in any case this rules will not be made on the spot and surely not be set retroactive.
Hence, how that could be due to a personal thing? (the "personal" argument is also a theme here)

Regarding the "priority" argument, I always find it not relevant to the discussion on BB forums, and in any case is the last issue that should be raised after agreeing on the need. So, are we there yet?
In any case, priority is not defined only by importance, but also by work-hours/years.
The "break-even" rule is something super easy and short to implement.

Manon said this and i approve.

How high do you prioritise this over other changes to the game like GE tweaks or developing an app?

What I don't understand is why are you putting so much effort into such a deep detail? And into a situation that is not at all common?

For instance, you have Italy. Currently the largest BB Community. NT approval rating is at 62%(an unexperienced guy would tell you this is bad). But at a closer look, the current manager got 69/129 votes when elected, which is roughly 53%. So basically quite close to the approval rating.

The purpose of the above numbers is. How can you control the fact that the other 60(!) guys won't just make up subjective rules against this guy who is currently managing? Like, say, limit his control over updates of players? Or completely compromise his team in the league he's playing in?

You are not viewing this from an NT manager perspective. It's a narrow perspective. I've been U21 coach for 8 seasons now, i can tell you this. We don't really need more people to make it harder.


In your previous reply to me, you said:

1) You contradict yourself multiple times.
a) You are saying that they will give the peek anyhow, but we should not enforce it.
b) You say that it will not give to much advantage, but you find it not fair to give the same "not too much advantage" to the team that had been peeked.

where is the contradiction? I never used the word fair or unfair, nor have i said I was for or against it. It's true that I suggested you should not enforce it.
I can tell you this. We had the same issue, and our NT manager transfer listed 5 or 6 of his best players with price like 10 million. This is why I said that almost anyone will help solve this issue without the necessity of this thread. Again, I fail to understand why you are consolidating your opinion.

2) Does a player if 1K is NT worthy on basically any NT?
This is just taking your question to the extreme.
Of course it is possible to set a limitation rule comparing current NT players with the player NT-manager requests to peek at.

The other half of the argument I just did not understood.

What I was trying to say is that it leaves room for "foul play". Let's take Italian community from my example above. What happens if the 60 managers that don't approve decide to buy NT players and not let them play for NT? Obviously, this leads to poor results from the NT team, etc, etc.

3) "Knowledge is power." And it is even not my line...
If there is no advantage in that then how can you be against the "break-even" rule?

I know it's not your line
I never said I was for or against. I am just presenting what would happen if the rule you suggest goes through, and that you need to work out some details before I can agree or disagree with you.


To conclude, I am not agreeing or disagreeing(at least not completely). All I am saying is, with my experience as U21 manager, all I see is things working slower and more difficult with your method. Try to look at it from the staff's perspective.