BuzzerBeater Forums

Suggestions > give up Strategys

give up Strategys

Set priority
Show messages by
This Post:
00
178778.28 in reply to 178778.25
Date: 3/31/2011 7:19:36 PM
SUMY DEVILS
II.2
Overall Posts Rated:
13321332
You're welcome to argue about whether it's effective or not, but our solution as game designers to this problem is that such teams are very likely to get relegated. One thing we've definitely noticed is that managers as a whole tend to underestimate the downside of being relegated and overestimate their chances of coming straight back up. This came up in the debate about 5th place vs. 6th place as well, remember.

Do you think your position would be improved if we handed you $5M (your estimate for what this team will make over the course of the season) but relegated you? As a long-term strategy, you're going to give up a lot of that in the first season you spend in a lower division, between upset fans and having to play D II instead D I games. Probably if you come right back up, you'll end up turning a profit, but if you stay down for more than 1 season it becomes a major loss. Which then means we should be asking how likely it is that you go right back up, and I think you're overestimating that by a pretty wide margin. Though maybe I should ask how likely you think it is that this team will go right back up.


We want one change. Team that loses the matches should receive much less profit from tickets. It would have been correctly. A lot of teams come in D1 not to fight for trophies, they just poured games and earn tickets. In real life, these teams are not interested in the fans and they do not buy tickets for losing teams.

This Post:
00
178778.29 in reply to 178778.28
Date: 3/31/2011 7:37:10 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
6868
We want one change. Team that loses the matches should receive much less profit from tickets. It would have been correctly. A lot of teams come in D1 not to fight for trophies, they just poured games and earn tickets. In real life, these teams are not interested in the fans and they do not buy tickets for losing teams.


So if you have a home game against one of these tanking losing team's the fan's also would not turn up to watch a 1 sided flogging. So should we make it so that the home team takes a big income cut?

What would happen when you get 3 tankers in the same conference, the other 5 team's would suffer and not be able to compete with the other conference.

This Post:
00
178778.30 in reply to 178778.29
Date: 3/31/2011 7:43:35 PM
SUMY DEVILS
II.2
Overall Posts Rated:
13321332
We want one change. Team that loses the matches should receive much less profit from tickets. It would have been correctly. A lot of teams come in D1 not to fight for trophies, they just poured games and earn tickets. In real life, these teams are not interested in the fans and they do not buy tickets for losing teams.


So if you have a home game against one of these tanking losing team's the fan's also would not turn up to watch a 1 sided flogging. So should we make it so that the home team takes a big income cut?

What would happen when you get 3 tankers in the same conference, the other 5 team's would suffer and not be able to compete with the other conference.


It should be related only to the home matches of this team, the rest should receive income in accordance with their position in the league.

This Post:
00
178778.31 in reply to 178778.30
Date: 3/31/2011 7:52:53 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
6868
Why would your fan's turn up and pay good money to watch you flog a team by 100 points. It work's both way's.

This Post:
00
178778.32 in reply to 178778.31
Date: 3/31/2011 8:02:36 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
237237
Why would your fan's turn up and pay good money to watch you flog a team by 100 point


Because they love watching their favourite team flog other teams!! It does not work both ways. The winning team's fans are always happy to do the flogging!



This Post:
00
178778.33 in reply to 178778.32
Date: 3/31/2011 8:12:09 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
6868
Because they love watching their favorite team flog other teams!! It does not work both ways. The winning team's fans are always happy to do the flogging!


So you would go and pay $100 to watch a no contest. You are watching sport for the wrong reason's then. people pay money to see a competitive game, not a Div 1 team flog a bunch of school kid's.

This Post:
00
178778.34 in reply to 178778.33
Date: 3/31/2011 8:22:29 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
237237
For the purposes of game play, it is the best compromise where you don't punish the non-tanking teams. This is already in effect to a degree. When 1 plays 8 in a home game, you expect less income.

But yeah...I'm sure some hard core fans would show up to watch their teams flog others just for the sake of it...and its not school kids..they are ABBLers for a start...

This Post:
00
178778.35 in reply to 178778.34
Date: 3/31/2011 8:36:02 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
6868
When an ABBL team sell's there team and sends in scrubs so they don't have to pay much salaries because they are tanking for the $$$$, they are not ABBLer's, they are Div 4 school kid's

But yeah...I'm sure some hard core fans would show up to watch their teams flog others just for the sake of it...and its not school kids..they are ABBLers for a start...


So like you said
some hard core fans would show up
So the usual crowd wont turn up and you attendance will take a big hit.

Last edited by whitemaggot at 3/31/2011 9:15:02 PM

This Post:
00
178778.36 in reply to 178778.35
Date: 4/1/2011 2:43:37 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
959959
the question is if this game have too be that realisitic, because at least in the most professionaell leagues, you have to get a license and for that often a player etat is part of getting it. So this scrub team wouldn't promote in the first way at least in germany.

other example out of germany,, in our second div is an pretty ambitious program, with div Etat who get some old Nationalplayer etc. They have visitors like a solid one div. team, and could have sell more if they already have an one div arena even if the y play just second division competion(they lost one game the season, and i don't think that they would lost a second one in the last games)

This Post:
00
178778.37 in reply to 178778.25
Date: 4/1/2011 3:38:31 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
587587
but our solution as game designers to this problem is that such teams are very likely to get relegated.

These teams affect the outcome of the regular season in their current league regardless of what happens to them in the short term (relegation) or in the longer term (they bounce back stronger or stay down and end up losing the financial advantage they gained). It's not fun for their current league mates, and it doesn't seem fair to teams they will face the next season.

I haven't seen any proof that tanking is a winning strategy. A team which is bound to relegate (100% chance) is probably better off tanking, but any team that has a chance of staying up needs to factor that possibility in somehow. However as long as it is possible to make a large weekly profit, some users will try it. In doing so, they affect the competitiveness of their league.

My league (my conference in fact) currently has two tanking teams, which is pretty boring for the rest of us. I appreciate the fact that these guys had reasonably competitive lineups for the first 7 games or so, which means teams in both conferences had practically the same number of easy games. It would have been pretty sad for the league if they had tanked from game 1.

This Post:
00
178778.38 in reply to 178778.19
Date: 4/1/2011 7:41:30 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
209209
the important point is how to detect if a team is tanking or not..

Exactly, and I think salaries must be one tool in detecting that. What should be considered is some sort of past average total salary of the team vs. current total salary of the team. I haven't spent a second thinking about a robust solution to the problem, but as long as it is about total salaries (spending) vs. total income (basically crowd + merchandise), the salaries are really the key here. Combine whatever metric that is derived from the salaries with some sort of sanity check based on in-game performance and no one should be punished undeservingly.

it looks like a good solution to me..
now we need the devil's advocate to find a leak here..

Still reading through the thread here, but I think basing the tank-detection on salaries is not a good idea.
As another poster pointed out, some players are twice as good as others even when they have the same salary.
Why not just detect tanking based on average margin of victory? If you lose every game by 60 points, fans aren't going to keep coming. Make it exponential so that an average margin of victory of -15 points is almost the same as -10, but -50 points is noticeably worse (for attendance) than -45.

But then it's not a perfect solution, because what happens if you sell your 4 best players all of a sudden? Fans need to know right away that you are forfeiting.


And reading this thread I was thinking, isn't it a little bit ironic that there is a draft like the NBA, while at the same time, there is promotion and demotion like in European countries for example?

If getting the 1st overall pick means you go to play in the D-League next season, would the Cavaliers still be tanking? And would the Thunder be where they are today?
I think there is something fundamentally wrong with mixing the two aspects, but I can't quite put my finger on it.

"Air is beautiful, yet you cannot see it. It's soft, yet you cannot touch it. Air is a little like my brain." - Jean-Claude Van Damme
Advertisement