BuzzerBeater Forums

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

the thing is though the player isnt cheating at all, his actually being quite smart as prices for players are gradually coming down so his 35 mil in todays market may get him alot more in tomorrows market.

his playing within the rules of the governing body of this basketball management game , which is clearly not cheating, its pretty stupid that u are allowed to do this how eva .
personally i think it shouldnt be allowed but at this point in time it is so good play to the lad, smart move to build for the future (aslong as prices continue to drop)

Exploits exist because of some oversight by the game designers. It needs to be "doable" for the exploit to be possible. To say he's not "cheating" because the game lets him do what he's doing is a poor excuse. Let's use some common sense here. Like that other poster said, this is a "management" game first and foremost. Does it make any realistic sense to continue to hold games when you have no players?

Anyway, all this back and forth about this topic is pretty pointless if we don't have any official word from the developers if their intention was that you could fire or sell all your players and still function as a team.

My opinion - what is allowed is legal. such problems are the fault of game designers and not the players. if he had a roaster of 5 or even 10 $1K salary players doing the same, nobody should even mention it. Exploiting "holes" in the mechanism is a part of the real world. it happens everywhere, not just in this game. So our job is to suggest BB-ers how not let such things happen.

Forbidding to have a roaster below X players will not help because one may just buy 10-15 players with 1K$ salary each. What can be done is that the TV contract money plus merchandise will not exceed the summary of player salaries, otherwise the difference will be reduced first from merchandise and then (if there is still a difference) - from TV contract.

The attendance should depend much more on the results, not only W/L, but also the difference. For example losing by more than 100 at home will lead to no attendance at all. losing by 50 means that only half of attendees that should be in this game (according to today`s rules) will actually attend, and so on. Technical forefits will also lead to no attenders of course.

In this case, this guy should have ZERO income!

regardless its still not cheating