BuzzerBeater Forums

BB Global (English) > Tanking

Tanking

Set priority
Show messages by
This Post:
00
218937.63 in reply to 218937.41
Date: 5/29/2012 2:54:26 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
4343
I realize that you were just giving a rough example, but you forgot to factor in the decreased attendance and merchandising that comes from tanking. I don't really know how much would be lost, and it probably wouldn't be equivalent to 1.7 million dollars, but that is also a factor. I still think that you would make more than you lost however, which isn't right.

This Post:
00
218937.64 in reply to 218937.63
Date: 5/29/2012 4:43:06 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
2323
I am generally opposed to restrictions against tanking in terms of making moves for the sake of making salary room. However, in the interest of 'fair play", I think each team should field at least 7 players for each game. So tanking by not carrying enough players to field a team in the event of injury or DQ does go against that aspect of "fair play". I realize some teams may still be so vastly superior that it isn't intent to lose, but rather intent to not compete.

This Post:
00
218937.65 in reply to 218937.64
Date: 5/29/2012 6:58:39 PM
Headless Thompson Gunners
Naismith
Overall Posts Rated:
719719
Second Team:
Canada Purple Haze BC
Fielding 7 players not the answer
teams would just have to couple of cheapies to flesh out roster

This Post:
00
218937.66 in reply to 218937.60
Date: 5/29/2012 7:22:08 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
409409
The think about GS drops is that they will affect market dynamic making it more slow. Not a very desirable second effect. And also becomes painfully unfair for teams who got an injured player or just want to modify his roster after observing current league/cup competiton for a while.

Plus, it won't stop tanking. Tanking the whole season and getting an excellent draft so you can rebuild on a lower division still seems dominant compared to the decision of trying to compete in a hard league.

Salary floor just hits the tanking teams. It also provides a healthy pressure on newly promoted teams to build minimun roster if they have not do it so.




From: tough
This Post:
00
218937.67 in reply to 218937.66
Date: 5/29/2012 7:50:24 PM
Mountain Eagles
III.1
Overall Posts Rated:
859859
Second Team:
Ric Flair Drippers
I'm back, here are my top suggestions I like with this thread, but me and Matt keep on getting denied, until now;
1. Eliminate #2 tanking with moving the deadline 2 weeks, even 2 weeks extra salary would hurt the buyer.
2. The Idea of GS. 2 would be a great start there
3. Rewarding $$$, but enough $$$ to make the teams enticed to win more and stop #1 tanking. Also trying to compete.
4. The Idea of contract. I just started a new manager game and it has contracts involve. And if you don't do what the contract says, you'd be fined. Also a nice suggestion.


Good suggestions guys, hope more come along and the BB GODS will notice.

3 Time NBBA Champion. Certified Trainer. Mentor. Have any questions? Feel free to shoot me a BB-Mail!
From: RSX
This Post:
66
218937.68 in reply to 218937.67
Date: 5/29/2012 8:43:57 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
181181
Some of my thoughts:

bad:
-moving trade deadline = killing market
-rewarding money = might affect other areas of the game, top division teams with even more advantage
-any kind of fines = the problem is solveable, no need for that
-higher salary floor = mixed feelings about it, perhaps yes, but what about teams that want to rebuild? what if team went bankrupt and has no money improve? how possibly can this team become competitive again, if it's not gonna generate profit?

good:
-salary cap = tanking would be useless as you can't spend all that money on monster salaries, +1 for strategy as money wouldn't have the final word
-contracts = sign player for number of seasons, more seasons = lower salary, you can sell it at any time but you have to pay him the money he's supposed to earn
-game shape for teams aka team chemistry = affected by trades and league and cup results, has impact on all players
-revisited attandance = fans should draw their opinion based on at least last 10 games (now its on last game and it's a joke), so if you are tanking for a half season, you need to start to compete for another half to get back to normal state

This Post:
22
218937.69 in reply to 218937.67
Date: 5/29/2012 8:45:47 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
8585
Looking at my team , most people would say im tanking , after all im getting shafted every game after winning promotion , the truth is im not prepared to spend millions to become lost in mediocraty when i can enjoy and learn from my experience in a higher division , train my youngsters and get a good draft pick all whilst continuing to improve my stadium. I dont see why any sane person would do differently in my position.

What im saying is its vey hard to define what tanking is.

From: brian

This Post:
00
218937.70 in reply to 218937.32
Date: 5/29/2012 10:02:46 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
576576
Anyone know when, where, who, and how Tanking got started?


tanking was a key strategy in hattrick, the game buzzerbeater was based on. if your familiar with hattrick and all the problems that existed there, then you wouldn't be surprised to see them replicated here.

as long as its financially feasible (not just money made from having low/no salaries, but how much money you can make off cross training), then tanking will a tempting choice.

"Well, no ones gonna top that." - http://tinyurl.com/noigttt
From: Axis123

To: RSX
This Post:
00
218937.71 in reply to 218937.68
Date: 5/30/2012 3:07:56 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
299299
game shape for teams aka team chemistry = affected by trades and league and cup results, has impact on all players
-revisited attandance = fans should draw their opinion based on at least last 10 games (now its on last game and it's a joke), so if you are tanking for a half season, you need to start to compete for another half to get back to normal state

+1

This Post:
00
218937.72 in reply to 218937.71
Date: 5/30/2012 3:19:10 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
952952
Game shape already encompasses team chemistry IMO. Not entirely, but...

If every time a player is put on market, his GS would fall by 1 or even 2 and he would play worse than before exposing him to the market - no matter if he's sold or not. Remember how Pau Gasol has been in the trade talks on both trade deadlines? How Odom got traded? They both lost something in the process.

However, it's also true some players can play better after a trade, for example Stephen Jackson or Kawhee Leonard at Spurs.This would be a bit tougher to address.

But we're talking about tanking here, right? I guess I went a bit off-topic, heh...

After I read the entire thread, I started thinking if I'm a tanking team. I throw at least one game/week because I keep worsening my team every time I have to raise money in order to acquire a good Slovenian prospect. So I guess it's not "pure tanking" because the reason isn't to gain as much money as possible, but to follow a long-term plan which requires timely purchases, even in face of harshly weaking the team.

From: FenXas
This Post:
22
218937.73 in reply to 218937.72
Date: 5/30/2012 4:28:11 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
269269
My opinion:
Buy player = GS Downgrade (1st half of season -1, 2nd half -2,
week or two before playoff -3) except if players GS lower 5;
Need team loyalty or Team chemistry (new START player mess up team)
Too much losses in a row, technical losses, not full line-up - fans boycott :D

And you should do something with players prices!!!
In generally promising draftees cost much more then good trained but older players. Its not normal...

Last edited by FenXas at 5/30/2012 4:33:03 AM

Advertisement