BuzzerBeater Forums

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

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!!

Eh, I don't want backups for every position for various reasons. But when I'm winning, even in a closer game, my starters would usually go 36-40 min with the same backups I have right now last season. Also, salary is some times misleading.

And I'm still behind on a player. I know that. Between being busy and trying to get the funds/find the right player that is why my rotation is a bit short. As I said, I've had to partly remake my team coming into the NBBA 1 season earlier than planned. One of my current starters is supposed to be a backup.

Of course, with so little time between end of season and beginning of new season, it's put me in another bind as far as building a team up. And yes, there's something about planning for the future, but as I said, I wasn't planning on moving up this season. The league's best teams kind of sold their best players 3/4 of the way through making me the best team by default (and I'm not one to intentionally lose).

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)

I understand that. And thought about it. I have money in my account and room to spend, still. But my schedule has made it hard to grab everything I want at once, plus some of the TL prices are outrageous.

Are you saying if your depth is lower salary, the coach will play them less? Because that's dumb if that's the case. I always assumed it didn't matter. And my depth, IMO, is better than their salary (or at times was).


anyway, i don't see why i can't put a cap on minutes in blowouts in the 4th. Every NBA coach pulls their stars out up 25 in the 4th or down 25 in the 4th. Why can't I?

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.

II.2 is like this. Last season there was a tanker in both conferences, and another team who wasn't really trying. So Stogey coasted along with a nothing roster, going 5-17, until relegation and then he turned it on and won to stay up. This season he's 6-1 and on his way. Not trying to single him out, it's just an example of how to take advantage of it.
This season we've already had 2 people quit and another (Manhattan Beach) go bot. It's nearly impossible to demote!

honestly, its is going to be tempting for me. at 3-3 im pretty much assured of 7th.