BuzzerBeater Forums

You want 48 minutes for a trainee ? Use 9 players in your order.
You want a good game shape ? Don't overplay your players.

first sentence comes with a price. you should agree. i did transitioned from three players at three games to one player as of primary trainee. in rare cases (when i can) i do this. but this game is not about training three players with 48 minutes in one position. you can not do that when you are at highest level of competition.

good game shape. that's another strategy. to buy 30-34 years old veterans. no staff. and in lbbl this strategy is not beaten yet. but i know, if not me, someone will beat it.

There is already many rules telling you how to play. Limiting tanking would be the same.

again. you can't beat tanking? why? tell me where you are loosing season after season to a tanker? show me :)

If tanking isn't efficient, I guess there is no reason to protect it ?

so we are fearing something that is not even efficient. and we need new rule(s) to avoid suffering from thanking that is unefficient?

If tanking isn't efficient, I guess there is no reason to protect it ? It goes against the spirit of playing. I prefer win against a real team than a tanking team. I prefer see a demoted team arriving in my league who didn't tank than a tanking team.

my opinion on this is... you can't loose spirit because just some nuts goes berserk. can you? be smarter.

I don't care at all about the tankers, my problem is the teams around these teams. If most people see them as a nuisance now and in the future, I think it's up to us to think how to change that. The current consensus is they are a nuisance.

why people think and treat them as a nuisance? often they just give up. why? i can't see a reason to do this.

so why are you so against tanking? :) you have no experience with tanking or tankers. yet you escalating that as a problem. :)

There is already many rules telling you how to play.

Exactly. No need to add more.

If we always left things the way they were and never wanted to improve, we would still be living in caves.

What is the big problem with reducing the effectiveness of tanking anyway?

It's more realistic. I'm not saying that BB should be completely realistic but what's the point of basing the game on basketball and allowing some things that are way off? Do we allow 15 fouls?

Last edited by Axis123 at 6/6/2012 9:34:23 PM

This is a "manger" sim right? if other people are tanking, how much "managing" are you doing? One could "go bot" and still beat people tanking...

Real life example, the Colts, obviously tanking after a while to try and get Andrew Luck. But their difference, they sucked with what they had already. They didn't go out and be like... "let's hire.... Tim Couch at QB, and... Terell Owens at WR.... and let's put at RB... Tiki Barber" etc.

They didn't find the scrubbiest people they can find, because seats at their arena will still sell.

Ok, suggestion idea here: Addition to "Fan Survey"
"The general manager is doing everything in his power to HINDER the team" The more balls in this, the much much severely impacted attendance and merchandising.

Edit: "But what if we go bankrupt trying to be competitive, etc." Well, in real life, people, teams, owners, businesses, etc. Go Bankrupt. it happens, it says "what you were doing, didn't work, and you paid the price". The beauty of here, you can probably start over, and not have to actually be bankrupt, and go to jail, etc. You just, have to start over, in the bottom league, in a "new franchise"

Last edited by LBJisaCancer at 6/6/2012 9:58:23 PM

People always come at this issue the wrong way. It's not about punishing the tankers, it's about examining the system and identifying the flaws that lead people to see tanking as the more desirable option.

The fact is: winning isn't rewarding enough. Let's look at a scenario: A USA DIII team wins the title and promotes. They get the huge bonus from winning a title, and are making just enough money to support the added salary they need to compete in a tough DII. Let's say they do pretty well in their first season. They win a fair amount of games, make the playoffs as a 3 seed, manage to upset the 2 seed but lose in the next round. I think most managers would consider that a really successful season for a promotee.

The problem is, the game doesn't.

Their attendance will drop the same as if they'd gotten 7th place and won the relegation series. Or gotten 5th place and not had to pay salaries for an extra week. When next season rolls around, and their attendance drops from ~95% to 60% and they can't afford their salary anymore, tanking until they have enough money to support a team capable of winning a bunch of titles in a row seems like the best path.

When the game doesn't accurately reward varying degrees of success (everything besides winning a championship is treated essentially the same), there's no reason to try as hard as you can.