BuzzerBeater Forums

but, i would still rather play in this league with at least some people i like like lukebee, yoda, fatbuy, koop, naker, iwen and others rather than teabagging it

but then again if i end up in the losers league i wont be playing any of them

I see where this frustration is coming from.... "bromance".
Too bad seagulls is dividing you from the pack and place you in the losers league. think of it on the positive side, you can be top of your league.

i think you have missed the point completly

there are 3 ways to run this

First way:
2 teams per PL.
These teams are made up of 6 teams.
In 1 season every team will play 11 games.
Out of these 11 games, 5 games will be against people on the same team as you, and 6 games will be against the opposition.
all games are against your friends and people you care about so every game is interesting

Second way:
4 teams per PL.
These teams are made up of 3 teams.
In 1 season every team will play 11 games.
Out of these 11 games, 2 games will be against people on the same team as you, and 9 games will be against the opposition.
therefore most games are against randoms you have never heard of and don't care about at all

Third way:
5 teams per PL.
These teams are made up of 2 teams.
In 1 season every team will play 9 games.
Out of these 9 games, 1 game will be against people on the same team as you, and 8 games will be against the opposition.
Therefore only 1 game is a useless win.
teams will be even more balanced with 3 leagues to split them into
and it gives the outcasts a chance to play

Does that make sense? Surely you think the third way is better right? Based on all your arguments it is better than the second way in every aspect.

Last edited by abigfishy at 1/10/2011 3:46:41 PM

so the top league would be something like
xbb - koop, dfbs
calamari - yoda, naker
gupies - monkey, zyler
kevin - ccat, iwen
outcasts - tremell, bevers

Last edited by abigfishy at 1/10/2011 3:55:35 PM

third way seems fine to me. I don't really care which way it is run, I'll enjoy it regardless, I'm just saying that Iwen's way makes a lot of sense.

Yeah i think if this pools method is taken on we need to think of a valid way to split the teams

There's nothing stopping a team saying well our 3rd best team wont win much in the stronger league and our weakest team wont win anything anywhere so why not put our worst team in the strong league so our 3rd team can dominate the weaker league... Could get all way to strategic and kind of defeat the purpose.

Perhaps either have an independent evaluation / head honcho's pick the best from each team. Or another option to avoid in team bickering also maybe scrap the strong and weak team divisions and just randomly pick teams from each team to play in each pool regardless of strength, Though while that still achieves the all 4 teams face each other issue it kind of defeats the purpose of allowing the weaker teams a chance to contribute and not have to play teams like koop, monkey, myself etc...

Ccat I see where you are coming from with the random generation but it would defeat the gold fish idea of playing together with a few ppl. In saying that not everyone have mind set too cheat. So to make every one happy especially the founding members, we just make it flexible as posible.

There's nothing stopping a team saying well our 3rd best team wont win much in the stronger league and our weakest team wont win anything anywhere so why not put our worst team in the strong league so our 3rd team can dominate the weaker league... Could get all way to strategic and kind of defeat the purpose.

I would think that we all as managers would respect each other to know where to put people. So as not to have 3 huge teams versing the weaker teams. But really there would would be no advantage to sending your best 3 to the bottom anyway as you are essentially sacrificing half of your points on the overall ladder. I would think having the even playing field would mean higher ranked managers would have even more chances to help lower teams get wins and place higher for there team. I do think that if a particular person wants to play in a league because his friends are in there, there is nothing wrong with that, but i know most of us are happy playing people we haven't played before and to create new rivalries.

I am currently happy with the idea of having what is 3 v 3 v 3 v 3 as it would give me more bragging rights over teams (when we win of course), but at the same time it is actually 6 v 6 v 6 v 6, true i don't play 12 teams but i wouldn't feel that i would get points for playing those particular 12 teams anyway.

In the end it is a shorter season and i know most of us will be around here for a while to come, so that means we are going to have plenty more seasons to grow and eventually crush everyone.

Neeber

i figured we would all just choose fairly to keep the balance

in the guppies its clear cut

we have 3 div 2 teams , and 3 div 3 teams

theres out split :)

all this talk of a div1 and div 2 or a losers league is wrong from my point of view.

its 2 pools of the same league

and as for smeltz being in the 2nd pool wouldnt sass be in the top league if we are going for balance ?

Um on a side note when will our players wages get updated??

all this talk of a div1 and div 2 or a losers league is wrong from my point of view.

its 2 pools of the same league

Here here +1

I would think that we all as managers would respect each other to know where to put people. So as not to have 3 huge teams versing the weaker teams. But really there would would be no advantage to sending your best 3 to the bottom anyway as you are essentially sacrificing half of your points on the overall ladder. I would think having the even playing field would mean higher ranked managers would have even more chances to help lower teams get wins and place higher for there team. I do think that if a particular person wants to play in a league because his friends are in there, there is nothing wrong with that, but i know most of us are happy playing people we haven't played before and to create new rivalries.

I am currently happy with the idea of having what is 3 v 3 v 3 v 3 as it would give me more bragging rights over teams (when we win of course), but at the same time it is actually 6 v 6 v 6 v 6, true i don't play 12 teams but i wouldn't feel that i would get points for playing those particular 12 teams anyway.

In the end it is a shorter season and i know most of us will be around here for a while to come, so that means we are going to have plenty more seasons to grow and eventually crush everyone.

Neeber

well said.