BuzzerBeater Forums

I actually think tanking is likely the end product of everything else that is wrong, and not the other way around.

agreed, fix the economy and training (at least personally, those are the 2 biggest reasons ive tanked) and I think you'll see a reduction in tanking.

Fixing training could wind up helping the economy a lot. People pay far too much money for an 18 year old, and in some cases more than a capped out perennial allstar guy. If the money could shift a bit towards paying for completed training as opposed to potential training, then the economy would probably look better.

There needs to be some way to make training a bit easier in higher leagues. We can't afford to put an 18 year old into a league game. And if we toss him into only cup games and scrimmages, he'll have piss poor experience levels. I know cross training was supposed to help versatility, but its negligible.

Sorry to bud into another league, but I couldn't help but notice the debate on tanking. You have glossed over some other issues regarding the matter though. For instance the bobcats did not only have 3 players on their roster for the season and they also had to sell their tickets at record low prices. So to realistically emulate the what a true tanking team goes through the gm would be required to actually have a complete roster to pay for, in addition to lowering their prices far below the current minimum to get the percentage of attendance that the bobcats got.

On another note: teams that tank often have negative earnings. The wizards, hornets and bobcats all lost money (the bobcats actually posted a -25 million operating income in the most recent Forbes report). So if you want to compare BB to real life, then tankers would lose money and be required to maintain a full roster as well as giving away tickets. Season tickets for the bobcats are going for a 'buy one get one free deal' and their regular season tickets are the cheapest in the league.

The main difference being the draft in real life vs BB, teams that are terrible get to draft players that can turn the franchise around like Kevin Durant or Tim Duncan. I really feel that the draft needs to be improved as to feature players that can actually make a difference when drafted as opposed to always being projects.

Tankers should at least have to pay their dues. No one would pay to see a terrible team with only 3 players or none in some cases of tanking. Also teams tanking in BB are much worse, many go 0-22 for multiple seasons without any attempt at improvement until loads of cash are piled up, at least the bobcats won games. In BB teams get away with too much when tanking. Machines in II.4 is 0-6 and tanking, but still gets a high percentage of attendance without the prices having to be at minimum levels which is just unfair as he will save up so much that he can drop to a low league and crush all of the players in each one who actually took the effort to be competitive. If you look at the teams with the highest profit in the NBA they are all competitive teams: the Lakers, Knicks, Thunder, Spurs.... That is just how things work, bad teams improve through development of players, making good signings and good coaching, not by tanking.

In fact many teams that tank season after season stay there in every professional sport. Look at the Warriors, Wizards, Clippers (pre Chris Paul).

Last edited by Persephone at 6/8/2012 2:35:41 PM

I think there's a good point here that income should end up lower than the salary floor for teams that are tanking, so that there's actually a real risk of losing money.

I still think my solution above could do that (and address just about all the tanking-related concerns that have been raised), just by imposing harsher penalties on huge losses. HCA is another beast entirely, of course.

Indeed, I agree that your proposal is very good and the idea of actually adding the chance to risk losing cash while tanking would really put the breaks on. Huge losses should be penalized and the 0-25 forfeits should forgo all ticket sales as they did not present their fans with a game.

Right now the difference in attendance after a single loss is really high and the idea of rewarding close games with less of an attendance decrease would be very welcome and being harsher on huge blowups is a good way to limit the success of tankers. :)

Let me chime in since I've tanked a few games this season.

It's not that I want to tank. It's that I have to tank and let me explain why. Because if I don't, I can't get the GS to become competitive. Coming into NBBA I have to partially rebuild my team (since I came a year earlier than expected). And I'm in the middle of the process. But here's the problem.

If I play a team MUCH better than mine that I cannot win with max enthusiasm and more effort, it hurts me not to tank. Sure, I sacrifice PD, but my starters all play 45 min in blowout losses. Couple that with 42-45 in a closer game and now I can't improve my GS. It makes more sense for me to tank 1 game, try another, then blow out my cup opponent.

I recently bought a $200k big man. His GS was bad when I bought him. Took me 2 weeks to get him acceptable. If I didn't tank, he'd still be bad and I'd still have no hope to win now.

IMO the Game Shape mechanic needs to be more forgiving OR the sim has to stop overplaying my starters in blowout losses. I should be able to set a cap on minutes if I want in those games. "Bench when down 25in the 4th" for example.

Another issue is TL players should reset GS to Respectable automatically, IMO. Buying guys at inept blows.

Just my two cents.

I don't think anyone would disagree that sometimes tanking is the best option. That's why we (all) do it.

I think the argument is that tanking makes things boring, so we should have more implements in place that make it a less appealing option. So when you're faced with the situations described above, tanking is no longer appealing as a viable (or at least, advantageous) strategy. This will, undoubtedly, hurt teams by making what is now a good strategy into a bad strategy. But, that's the point..

I don't really see what you're doing as tanking, since you're trying to win every week. I see tanking as intentionally losing multiple games in a row to maximize profit. Throwing a game for cup reasons, or sacrificing 1 game to win another seems very different in spirit.

I recently bought a $200k big man. His GS was bad when I bought him. Took me 2 weeks to get him acceptable. If I didn't tank, he'd still be bad and I'd still have no hope to win now.

TL players should reset GS to Respectable automatically, IMO. Buying guys at inept blows.

don't want to sound like a jerk, but... you shouldn't buy someone with inept GS if you don't want someone with inept GS!!! i personally like it as is for many reasons.

IMO the Game Shape mechanic needs to be more forgiving OR the sim has to stop overplaying my starters in blowout losses. I should be able to set a cap on minutes if I want in those games. "Bench when down 25in the 4th" for example.

i get the frustration. but it's intentionally that way. the game depends on prioritizing choices like that. if you get decent backups, you'll be fine minutes-wise. (starters will be at 35-40 min regardless of blowout or not). or you can forget about better backups & train GS if you value it enough.

I don't get why everyone has such a problem with tanking.

Looking over the suggestions thus far, I would very much so be in favor of no changes vs what I've seen because the suggestions are too limiting for teams in certain situations.

i have a feeling any fix they come up with will create even more problems.

I have no problem at all with you tanking. It's a smart, disciplined move. And fair to all, since you did it from the start of the season. As long as tanking isn't ridiculously overpowered, it should be allowed in some form. Normally, tanking teams have to throw away an entire season + demotion penalty + most don't promote back up the following season.

but like it was said by GM-Jason i think... there's a problem when multiple teams in a single conference are tanking at the same time. when a team can intentionally lose half a season, exploiting it, without demotion or facing any real penalty... it's not good.

i get the frustration. but it's intentionally that way. the game depends on prioritizing choices like that. if you get decent backups, you'll be fine minutes-wise. (starters will be at 35-40 min regardless of blowout or not). or you can forget about better backups & train GS if you value it enough.

I'm not talking about tanking for a cup game. I have to tank in week X even if my cup opponent is a bot because I will lose 1 game badly and my starters will play 45 min, killing GS. I can either play them in both games and kill GS or play in 1, tank the other, and destroy the bot team. When I blow out a team badly, my starters play 24-32 minutes, but when my starters get destroyed, they play 45. That's a mistake, IMO. My starters should not be playing the 4th down 50 unless I want it that way (for training).

This distorts the league. For instance, say I have 2 games I cannot win this week, one versus you and one versus someone else. I tank versus the other guy and play my starters versus you. Now he gets a big PD advantage over you even if your teams are about equal quality. My hands are tied and I'm flipping a coin (or maybe home/away thing).

In blowouts, my starters should be below 36 minutes unless otherwise instructed. This would help with random tanks, IMO.

Sorry, i was unclear. ok, about the GS problem...

and my starters will play 45 min, killing GS. I can either play them in both games and kill GS or play in 1, tank the other, and destroy the bot team.

I meant that if you had decent backups your starters wouldn't be out there 45 min / game in non-blowouts. By choosing to allocate all your $ to starters, that's sort of the intended penalty. I mean your 8th best player makes only $9k and 9th best makes only $4k. That's why your starters won't sub out!!

In blowouts, my starters should be below 36 minutes unless otherwise instructed.

Say if instead of buying a $200k PF, you had bought 2 $100k players (or even 3 $65k players) instead... moves like that and you wouldn't have the GS / minutes problem. So it's a choice of "peak strength" vs. depth. And you went really extreme to 1 side. I'm at the other side probably. (some league games 11 different players get in for me)

Example:
Check out the S19 minutes for my 2nd best PF/C (came in 3rd in MVP voting last season)
(http://www.buzzerbeater.com/player/4547102/stats.aspx?sea...)
only 2 games over 34 min the entire season!! and a *high* of 37 min! My 2nd highest paid player only averaged 21 min / game.... My absolute *best* (by a mile) non PF/C never went over 40 min a single game last season either... The minutes work out fine. It's only when you get really unbalanced that you run into problems.

This distorts the league.

As for distorting the league & PD... You're right, it does distort PD, but PD is already messed up with the cup randomly affecting league games. And you play your own conference twice. So were a team going after only 1 win / week, it's usually the home game & balances out. The whole aiming for 5th problem really screws things up at the end of the season regardless.


Anyway, don't want this to seem like I'm attacking you or your team or anything along those lines...

Last edited by shikago at 6/9/2012 3:09:23 AM