BuzzerBeater Forums

By forfeit I did mean technical loss. I would say that playing your three worst players should also be punished. It would not be as severe though because at least the fans got to see a game. I would say that the punishment for this type of loss would be decreases attendance for later games. I am hypocritical in this as I just recently "tanked" my cup game for a league game, because I was facing an opponent 2 divisions higher than me. I am interested to hear people's thoughts on that as well. Should my intentional loss to preserve gameshape be considered tanking and punished. I myself would say no because you are still trying to be competitive and you're not really being a detriment to anyone's else's experience (except maybe the team you play the next week), but I would like to hear other's thoughts.

You should agree, that conditional programing is a bad idea. You have so much scenarios... And you will surely skip one. Therefore creating one or more unhappy user. Programing is object orientated. Not conditional.

The object is to make the game more realistic and more fair.

I would say that playing your three worst players should also be punished. It would not be as severe though because at least the fans got to see a game. I would say that the punishment for this type of loss would be decreases attendance for later games.

So think. If i know that there will be punishment because i am playing my three worst players, what should i do? I get the cup money for the win. I get league money for attendance. Logical answer is - forget the cup. It will ruin my next home game.

No, you totally missed what I was saying. Prices need to be *higher* relative to salaries.

You seem to miss the point, that in this game, salary is part of the transfer fee. The game is about filling up teams rosters to fill that "salary cap". I see you are a relativly new user. I remember why FA's were introduced. Everyone was well below their caps and money was pileing up. Players sold for 10-15mil, the prices were still going up as everyone had a lot of money to spend and nothing to buy. 11k salary players were going for 1,8mil.
So basically your first and second post are negated, as we need something to remove that excess income from the game. Arena does that aswell to some point, but it has a max. Staff does it a bit, but the main that has filled most teams "salary cap" is FA's. If we want to remove the FA's completely, we need to compensate it somehow to avoid pileing up the money again. Either max transfer gain at 50% or something.
If 25k players would cost 2,5mil by default on TL. Tanking team might get that after half a season of tanking, how long do you think it would take for a team with income of 100k a week. 2 seasons? Get real...

That means that the team that just bought all its players after tanking for 3 years is at no disadvantage vs. the team that's been carefully nurturing its roster.

Team tanking for 3 years, as going for the 8th spot and relegation (and I mean in a big country). Let's leave those relegation game buyers aside, as they usually blow a big portion of the money they save on those players just before the playoffs and if they lose they are double effed. So if a team tanks for 3 seasons, he has dropped to divIV. It takes him 3 more seasons to get back to divI + many of them fail at their attempt to get back up. Even dropping one level is challenge enough. You need to get a competitive team right at the start of the season and you usually end up paying a lot more per skill as you tend to settle in the need of gathering a team quickly compared to slowly building a team.
I think tanking to some degree is needed, some teams are so badly overspending in order to win a championship, that eventually they need to get out of that minus.

Increase the cost relative to the gain, and it won't work.

While i do agree on this. But you should consider this... High salary burns your account of cash quickly when you have salary's above your league level. I won leagues with lower salary's than my opponent's in finals. That's a point too. And... I've seen tanking teams a lot. Neither of them are successful until now. Yes they "flash", for a short period of time. Show me a successful tanker, the one who is dominating for two or three seasons (or more).

Yeah. But in the "flash", or what I've been calling the binge, they stop someone else from winning. That's the problem, not that the "unjust" are succeeding, but that they are spoiling it for everyone else. When someone runs a 250K salary (not even counting staff) in a league where the income is closer to 200K, that's not fun for everyone else in the league. Even if that person flames out after they promote. And if there's always someone who is running a deficit, it's very hard for anyone else not running a deficit to win (not impossible, depending on the size of the deficit.) At which point the user who wants to promote thinks, logically, "in order to promote, I need to run my team for income rather than result for a while (tank) and then run it for at a loss for a year." And the way to beat that person *that year* is to have tanked harder and binged more. And the cycle continues, and gets worse -- if there weren't any tanker/bingers, no one would have to tank/binge to win, for sure. When there's usually a binger in the league, it's (almost) the only way to win.

On this point I agree...my only suggestion was that each team should be required to dress at least 7 for each match. Yeah, it would be easy to work around, but it makes the game more realistic and enjoyable for all.

I also stated earlier in terms of out right tanking any other way, I am opposed to any action. Because, in real life, it does happen that teams reaching a new level will try to maximize cash any way that they can. But they still field a legitimate team.

There are some great suggestions in here, and as usually we do not interfere much to keep the dicussion lively. Your contributions are highly appreciated, though. Since so many people are contributing to the topic, I would like to weigh in a bit as well by asking your opinion about another part of this possible issue.

In between the many suggestions for solutions to tanking, some people also highlighted another interesting point. What exactly is tanking and why do people choose this strategy? Are we talking about a season strategy or a tactic for a single game, when is a game tanked?

Probably we think we know what tanking is, but untill we are quite sure that we are all talking about the same problem its hard to define the best solutions.



Last edited by BB-Patrick at 5/30/2012 9:56:47 PM

Thank you, finally a BB-God comes to us..................which suggestion do you think is best (so far) and in your opinion...........

A BB god speaks!!

I'm shaking with anticipation...

:P

By tanking, what I meant was giving up a series of games usually over the majority of a season, though sometimes it can be done over several seasons, in order to make a larger profit than one would if competing (aiming for no place on the ladder in particular).

As can probably be felt from the messages, most managers don't agree that it should be a viable option, particularly if it is if not the most profitable strategy.

Probably we think we know what tanking is, but untill we are quite sure that we are all talking about the same problem its hard to define the best solutions.

I guess you can call everyone a tanking team if they intentionally lose at least one game because they don't have a big enough roster to compete three times/week. The only difference between tanking teams is lenghth of tanking. Not only hard-core tanking, but also "mild tanking" can be unfair to some teams. Example:

By that definition, I'm a tanking team too. Before the season I determine my goals for the season which highly depends on quality of my trainees and positions I have to train. If I know I can't win it all, then why try? It's better to save money a bit and train, and wait for the right opportunity.

I think I described the mildest type of tanking. But only because it's mild it doesn't mean it's fair. Semi-tanking team like myself each week chooses a game to win and a game to lose. From perspective of teams that want to promote, I call that a "random factor". Promotes wannabes don't have any control over who will I give a 60-point win, so I can shape up the rankings to some extent.

And I see a lot of teams like this in my league. At least two in each conference. Nobody wants to be a team that barely gets together a bit of profit each week only to see its' dreams crushed in quarterfinals. So the strategy in our D.II is "save, save, save...then one season, BAM! Try to promote with unsustainable roster".

To me this seems a big problem.

There are some great suggestions in here, and as usually we do not interfere much to keep the dicussion lively. Your contributions are highly appreciated, though. Since so many people are contributing to the topic, I would like to weigh in a bit as well by asking your opinion about another part of this possible issue.

In between the many suggestions for solutions to tanking, some people also highlighted another interesting point. What exactly is tanking and why do people choose this strategy? Are we talking about a season strategy or a tactic for a single game, when is a game tanked?

Probably we think we know what tanking is, but untill we are quite sure that we are all talking about the same problem its hard to define the best solutions.

Thanks for the reply, Patrick. I don't consider that coming here chatting a bit with us and telling what you think about how this thread is going after the last BB news is interfering. More improving the communication and the team chemistry between us (:p) about the way our wishes and your long term plans may work together.

I'll take your word, "tanking a game" leads to a reality in BB. And that is because of the enthousiasm system. We lose on purpose a game by saving enthusiasm and play time for our best players in order to be sure to get the good place in the end of season, or to be sure to win another important match in this season (because it is against the rival, against our main opponent for the place we want, or because we will get more money for the home match just after this one), or to go for the cup etc. This works the same way than the usual tanking for at least a good part of the season but the economical advantage is not always direct. Sometimes it may even be for a competitive reason.
Honestly, this is the thing I don't like in BB. For me, when the boardscore shines with a big 0-0, you want to win a match. If you win it, you're happy and you have more enthousiasm. If you lose, you're less enthousiastic. And if you put much efforts in a game, well, negative repercussions should be about the minutes played, what brings to the game shape.
But right now, the relationship between minutes and game shape are too random for this to be more obvious.

Still, we focused ourselves in this thread about the usual long time tanking as it is the one that did a huge impact on the game lately, whereas tanking a game is a strategy there from the very beginning of BB. The discussion about this system already happened several times, so it is hard to think that it will be changed now.
And because season tanking, contrarily to game tanking, is more a saving/training strategy for the time someone is tanking, not a competitive one, except when the tanker tanked then got a big team for the play downs in the same season.

Last edited by Dunker Joe at 5/31/2012 3:16:08 AM