BuzzerBeater Forums

"Victims" might be a bit intense but nontankers are still disadvantaged.

yeah they get give me victories, which helps them bring in more revenue.

I'm tell you, the lot of you need to put your man pants on, and grow up. IF they want to tank, so be it. Your not their mother, quit trying to tell people how to play the game, the way they want to play it.

yeah they get give me victories, which helps them bring in more revenue.

I'm tell you, the lot of you need to put your man pants on, and grow up. IF they want to tank, so be it. Your not their mother, quit trying to tell people how to play the game, the way they want to play it.

That you tell me to put "man pants" on makes me laugh.

It has nothing to do with "manning up". There's nothing "soft" about discussing changes to a game to make it better and, more importantly, more realistic.

Calling a fantasy game, Realistic. Priceless. Oh and in reality, Teams do tank. So you lose that argument. Look I left you guys go, until someone started calling nontanking teams, "Victims". Thats when the is conversation has gone to far. When you call players in a fantasy game where nothing is won or lost, other then imaginary trophies, "Victims", is when it went "Soft".

Talking about ideas, that would benefit only nontankers, is just discussing. I have no problem with that. Its when people go so far over board, is what I'm getting at.

There's a simple solution to stop people forfeiting on purpose: if you forfeit a game you receive no training for that week.

That stops tankers from training, but not those who are just filling their pockets. A reasonable suggestion would also include losing all TV money for the week for the first forfeit and increasing that for subsequent ones, but that doesn't address the problem of teams fielding three (or five) scrubs so as not to field a walkover but still not really be competitive. Including margin of defeat of course addresses that but then teams will then be afraid to promote on the fear that they will be beaten heavily on a routine basis, and this would just lead to a new form of tanking where teams would just try to not win in the postseason. And making promotion extremely valuable would mean that either teams would just yo-yo looking to profit in the long run by the promotion bonuses or relegation would need to likewise be dramatically harsher, which would again lead to a real lack of desire to promote.

If there was a simple solution, I think this would have been done seasons ago. The problem is, the only real solution is to have truly intelligent fans and a truly intelligent economy that's not something that's easy at all to accomplish - because at some point no matter how it's programmed, users will figure it out and people will flock to whatever strategy is perceived as being the strongest, whether or not it turns out to be true.

Again someone will have to be in the last place if that team is for example newly promoted, has small arena and spends all it's money to have competitive roster and fights to survive, but just doesn't succeeds why it has to be punished the same as tanking team.

cant be better explained.

i didnt read all posts so i may missed some points.
"punishing people for just losing" (ok it not exactly what people saying, but at the and it is the same thing) is not just bad idea it is also the worst idea in the topic. being last in a league is just as natural as being first, it will happen to somebody and he will go down anyway. so do we need to kick him one more time too? this will also expand the difference between upper div and belower div.
if i get the last spot and be punished about it, i would definetely give up the game and i believe many others do the same.

Again someone will have to be in the last place if that team is for example newly promoted, has small arena and spends all it's money to have competitive roster and fights to survive, but just doesn't succeeds why it has to be punished the same as tanking team.

cant be better explained.

i didnt read all posts so i may missed some points.
"punishing people for just losing" (ok it not exactly what people saying, but at the and it is the same thing) is not just bad idea it is also the worst idea in the topic. being last in a league is just as natural as being first, it will happen to somebody and he will go down anyway. so do we need to kick him one more time too? this will also expand the difference between upper div and belower div.
if i get the last spot and be punished about it, i would definetely give up the game and i believe many others do the same.

I think this should be our biggest concern. We cannot bring down people who cannot compete with the people who decide to save money.

Team gets promoted with a small arena and no long term plan. Invests on arena and trainees, he is likely going to get demoted and we are planning to hurt him even further?

I think a slight raise in salary floors on dII and a moderate one in DI would do the job for long term tanking. And there is nothing we can do about playoff tanking. Every change made will just move the playoff tanking from one way to another (the same way 5º not paying salaries is just a consequence of teams tanking to be 6º and have 2 easy homegames).

ım a newbie. so, my team was at the last spot in my league when ı have it. will u punish me ???? :)

Last edited by acemil at 6/4/2012 1:10:03 PM

Nope. If a new team was created then for the 1st month they're safe. We know how you gotta find some players, get your arena done, so you're excused. For 1 month. Is that reasonable? Or does it have to go longer, like 2 months????

Calling a fantasy game, Realistic. Priceless. Oh and in reality, Teams do tank. So you lose that argument. Look I left you guys go, until someone started calling nontanking teams, "Victims". Thats when the is conversation has gone to far. When you call players in a fantasy game where nothing is won or lost, other then imaginary trophies, "Victims", is when it went "Soft".

Talking about ideas, that would benefit only nontankers, is just discussing. I have no problem with that. Its when people go so far over board, is what I'm getting at.

A fantasy game is usually based on a real sport (concept). Having a fantasy game based on basketball and allowing players to have 15 fouls is less realistic than having a fantasy game based on basketball with 5 fouls. Get me?

I agree with you about the victim thing. Adding to that, a victim is only a victim when they assume that role, otherwise you're just dealing with a set of circumstances.

I think you've made your point.

Can we get back to the actual topic now?