BuzzerBeater Forums

thanks for all your comments so far!
there have been a mix of factual comments and comments slightly supportive of the tactic

i dont like it at all, but am i being too sensitive?!

i know there are lots of less extreme examples where strange behaviour can benefit a team slightly and i know this is *just a game* - but i think its a shame that behaviour so out of line with the spirit of running a basketball club/ running a business is rewarded in this unrealistic way.

this tactic tests the limits of how BB's game/financial mechanics works and results in an unrealistic outcome. i say it tests the limits because you cannot get a smaller roster than 0 players and be any better than a team in a top division with large arena.

Ideally all managers would try to be realistic and play in the spirit of the game, rather than just the rules.

It would be a shame to have to make rules (which need to be enforced) or change the mechanics of the game (taking time and possibly opening up new opportunities to take advantage of) to manage extreme cases such as these, but i think it is worth considering if it becomes more common.

replacing the roster of your team is a legitimate thing to do. perhaps we could think about the ways this can be done in BB and which ways are realistic and which ways arent and see if something can be done about making the consequences more realistic.
i believe managers should have the choice but be faced with realistic consequences.

so if you cant field a team, the game would be cancelled in advance meaning no gate receipts. couple more times and the TV company looks to recoup some/all of its money. perhaps a condition of receiving tv revenues in any one week is that the team salary is a certain % of the league average/whatever figures went into the tv revenue calculation in the first place?
also this behaviour would (does?) have effects on other teams in the league, so it isnt fair on them that their players and fans get to have 1 or 2 less games with them a season.
should such behaviour attract a fine from the league's governing body?

He could also buy just 4-5 players with 1k wage and do the same. There is nothing to do. Positive impact is that he is giving chance to another team in the league.

what if BB were to implement a rule stating, if you have no roster for X amount of days then the computer will create a roster similar to the original 18 players given and money would be spent to get those players?

I doubt that this would have to be implemented oftenm, but i think in some cases like this, its needed.

It depends from the level of the league,when you had to play in a tough second division,also if you have a great amount of money,you can challange very competitive teams,and you cannot spend all you money you gain from this tactic in the roster,because the incomes of the second division is not so high for the level of salaries you have to afford to win the league and rise again in the first division

I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say. You need three players in every game to have a valid line-up (and to accumulate minutes for training). Also, I was assuming a single position training program, which usually means you need to get each trainee exactly 48 minutes at his training position.

So, let's assume you have 3 trainees: trainee A, B and C. You also will need 2 scrubs: D and E. Here is the rotation I would use:

Game 1

A gets 48 minutes at the training position
D and E play at other position(s)

Game 2

B gets 48 minutes at the training position
D and E play at other position(s)

Game 3

C gets 48 minutes at the training position
D and E play at other position(s)

Not optimal for game shape but certainly better than having no players at all. At least you still get training.

As for whether this is an good strategy or should be made illegal, I have no opinion. I will leave that for others to debate.

So, let's assume you have 3 trainees: trainee A, B and C. You also will need 2 scrubs: D and E. Here is the rotation I would use:

other possibility:

Game 1

A gets 48 minutes at the training position
B and C play at other position(s)

...

Who cares about GS, ok you have the chanche of injuries but they are pretty rare and you get Xp in exchange ;) So i would probadly have betwen 3 and 5 guys, to play the "real" games with trainees only and the scrimmage with 1k scrubs.

I think the question of right or wrong is rhetorical. Count me in the camp that thinks this is wrong. It is obviously an exploit of the game mechanics. It is shameful that even in a game that has no real world monetary benefits people still find ways to cheat the system.

Let us add rules to prevent x, y and z because "I don't like it".

1) It is a game. There are no "fans" actually being conned here.

2) As for whether it is against the spirit of running a business, of course not. As a business model it is hard to fault.

I can't see who he harms, yet people are on his back anyway, and want to prevent him doing what he does, all because of some dubious "spirit of the game".

Let us talk about the game then. It isn't basketball. That is just a cover. It could be American Football or Kabaddi. It doesn't really matter. This is a management simulation, and that is just another way to manage your team. This game is all about who manages their franchise best within the limitations given.

The solution is so, so simple.

If a team dresses too few players for a game, they're fined at least 100% of their revenue through attendance as well as their portion of the TV contract for that week. And if the percentage were higher than 100%, so much the better. It could even be progressive: 100% for the first offense, an increase for the second, and so forth.

And did I see that teams have to have at least three players dressed for the game? Why not five, at the very least?

Your post is wrong on so many counts but I'll try to dissect. First of all, whether "virtual fans" are the ones being conned is moot. By reducing his expenses, he's earning more money, which he can turn around and use to purchase better players, which affects everyone in his league and the general market for that matter. That, in and of itself, is not the issue. The issue is circumventing a flaw in the match engine that allows him to have no players and still play games. That, my friend, is an exploit in the very sense of the word.




Last edited by Foto at 5/23/2010 7:44:53 AM