BuzzerBeater Forums

i think if you put 1 in 3 you find plenty examples for three.

The other think 1 would punish a lot of team, since you most likely get a powerhorse at a league as your rival.

I think the way they look for rivalrys, with considering about close matchup is quite fine. Making all bidrictional would be fine too.

i think if you put 1 in 3 you find plenty examples for three.

The other think 1 would punish a lot of team, since you most likely get a powerhorse at a league as your rival.

Please elaborate - I did not understood what you are trying to say.

I think the way they look for rivalrys, with considering about close matchup is quite fine. Making all bidrictional would be fine too.

Are you saying that (here on BB) the rivalry is not random and is defined upon finding close matchups?
If not, again - please elaborate...

i think if you put 1 in 3 you find plenty examples for three.

The other think 1 would punish a lot of team, since you most likely get a powerhorse at a league as your rival.

Please elaborate - I did not understood what you are trying to say.

you are saying, that biigger teams mostly have more rivalrys then smaller one. In my experience they have the same amount of rivalrys, then other teams(even when they are more important for the public and that why more known by the people).

I use german soccer example(since german basketball teams ain't well known i believe), Bayern München is the biggest club and the poeple love or hate him here. So people are more excited when they beat München and more happy(i believe that it was you mean with rich club have more rivalrys), but München cares about those looses like about every other one. Also the fans aren't totally sad, if they loose against Bayern since this is what they expect. So if you make all those game bidirected rival matches, it is untrue for Bayern München in every case and untrue for the other teams in term of a loss.

rivalry are more like games betwen Dortmund and Schalke, where a season is fine when you beat up the other team ;)

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.

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.

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.
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.

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.

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

i think if you put 1 in 3 you find plenty examples for three.

The other think 1 would punish a lot of team, since you most likely get a powerhorse at a league as your rival.

Please elaborate - I did not understood what you are trying to say.

you are saying, that biigger teams mostly have more rivalrys then smaller one. In my experience they have the same amount of rivalrys, then other teams(even when they are more important for the public and that why more known by the people).

I use german soccer example(since german basketball teams ain't well known i believe), Bayern München is the biggest club and the poeple love or hate him here. So people are more excited when they beat München and more happy(i believe that it was you mean with rich club have more rivalrys), but München cares about those looses like about every other one. Also the fans aren't totally sad, if they loose against Bayern since this is what they expect. So if you make all those game bidirected rival matches, it is untrue for Bayern München in every case and untrue for the other teams in term of a loss.

rivalry are more like games betwen Dortmund and Schalke, where a season is fine when you beat up the other team ;)

You are analyzing it completely wrong.

Rivalry does not mean that your fans expect a win, it means that they will want that more than other games.
Two teams that are closer at the leagues standings, will have some rivalry on that season, but it is not the rivalry disscused here.

It is like Espanol and Barca.
Do you think that Espanol believes they can match Barca on a regular day? Much less than those German teams exmple you've brought.
Did Espanol finds Barca to be their rivals? Sure thing they are.
They will get much happier in case they will win, but will not take a loss as seriously as losing some weaker team.
The reason - this rivalry is a biased one.
On Biased-Rivalry, one team may gain much (fan's supportance) by wining the game, but lose much less.

On a NON Biased-Rivalry (or at least, less biased one), the rivalry is "bi-directional" in the terms of fan's reaction both for a win and for a loss.

In case Munchen has lots of rivalries, those teams will put more against her (which is surely happens).
On regular seasons, a loss against them will not cause too much "depression", but a win will make a lot of noice and extatic reaction on the opponent fans' side.
But, in case that team, who finds Munchen to be a rival, will meet her on a season where they are a little more equal in performance, that will also be seen at the other team rivalry reaction.

Last edited by Pini פיני at 2/10/2012 6:59:22 PM

It is like Espanol and Barca.

Excellent example! But lets give it a twist. Lets add Real to the example and see what team Barca would see as their Rival and what game they would like to win most. As Espanol may see Barca as their rival and the other way around i think Barca would see Real as their biggest rival. Real would have Barca as their biggest rival to as they often battle for the top place in the league.

So BArca in this example has two rivals, just like here on BB.

You've meant that Barca is the rival of two teams... But as you wrote it is also the other way around (in the real world)...

For the fans, it is not always the stronger team that they compete with.

In any case, in your example, it is pointing to that a team that is strong should be a rival of many teams (which is true), but also that there are rarely any for those who are not the top teams.
This is not what it should, or what is.

Huh? I know plenty "lower" teams who hold a rivalry of some kind. I don´t know where you take your conclusion from.

Actually, pretty much ANY fanbase holds a rivarly to someone. Just to be recognized (and rewarded) with beeing worth of a complementary rivalry is not a guarantee.

Huh? I know plenty "lower" teams who hold a rivalry of some kind. I don´t know where you take your conclusion from.

Actually, pretty much ANY fanbase holds a rivarly to someone. Just to be recognized (and rewarded) with beeing worth of a complementary rivalry is not a guarantee.

And again you are having trouble with reading...

I said - that in case we go the "Manon way", then it means that almost all will find their rivalries at one of the stronger team, and (very) rarely against the weaker one.

So... You are supporting what I've written, that this is not the case, and rivalry should be both against stronger and weaker teams (although, stronger teams should expect more rivalries).