BuzzerBeater Forums

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.

Hmm, I've never stayed in one league long enough to see this, is 2nd/3rd really similar to 7th?

In my experience, yes.

There might be a small difference, but it's negligible.

In my experience, yes.

There might be a small difference, but it's negligible.

Ricky Bobby's Daddy
"If you ain't 1st you're last!"

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.

This is music to my ears.

I completely agree. If you make it to the playoffs, the paying customers who support you should be really excited to support you, you should gain some long term fans etc etc. The way it is at the moment, you can come dead last and pfff.. doesn't matter. As long as you fulfil the other requirements on the fan survey, you can still pull good attendances the next season AND even the season you're tanking.

In my experience, yes.

There might be a small difference, but it's negligible.

Ricky Bobby's Daddy
"If you ain't 1st you're last!"

Valid point.

And random other point, didn't that one African manager have like 100M+ at one point?

Look at (22817). Back in S15, he tanked at the perfect time and made a profit of $25 million by selling his players alone, IIRC. He then came back stronger and promoted 2 seasons in a row to get back to D1. If this isn't someone who tanked well, I don't know what is.

There's lots of that that makes no sense.
Say you're in the final and have home advantage
you win at home than lose on the road.
Instead of fans anticipating a championship and flooding the place,
your attendance goes down because you lost your previous game on the road.
Where would that actually happen, EVER?

I think that is a poor example, KDB was a top end team before tanking(arguably the best in US history). And while his team is certainly good now and I'm sure he still has money in reserve he is not where he used to be, and certainly didn't "come back stronger".