BuzzerBeater Forums

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

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.

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

What about not to rise minimal team salary drastically but to do min player salary for main players (because of draftees) depends on division ?

-rewarding money = might affect other areas of the game, top division teams with even more advantage

I believe the current system is totally flawed when teams that win championships has 0 income all season or even go to minus, on the other hand tanking team can make millions for not playing and with current market situation, those teams can fast gain huge advantage against teams that has 0 income but which are fighting. BB is constantly rewarding "bad" behavior - be in the last place and you have the best draft pick, be in a 5th place and you don't have to pay salaries, I want to see "good" behavior to be rewarded.

-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

It won't make it useless, because tanking teams will just buy better, multiskilled players.

1. Eliminate #2 tanking with moving the deadline 2 weeks, even 2 weeks extra salary would hurt the buyer.

I think you (all here discussing deadlines) are going too far with deadlines, because tanking is about hoarding large amounts of money from loosing if BB can prevent tanking teams from getting this money when your scenario of #2 tanking won't be relevant.

be in the last place and you have the best draft pick

Solution: relegated teams - starting picks, others by random;

, be in a 5th place and you don't have to pay salaries

Its like recompense for less training

Last edited by FenXas at 5/30/2012 5:14:17 AM

In generally promising draftees cost much more then good trained but older players. Its not normal...

I woud have a suggestion here...

Raise the total skillpoints maximum for 19y olds. Current max skillpoints you can have on a trainee is 70 if he has all Respectables (7 x 10). Why not raise this limit to 80 for 19y olds? An 18y old can get 10 pops in his first season easily even with two-position training. If there were19y olds MVP-HoF with 3 skills at Proficient, this would boost supply of good rookies and drive the prices for rookies down a bit. It would also make the draft a bit more interesting, as currently there are 1 in 3 drafts where you can get only one good rookie (4k salary HoF or MVP).

I think we can find the answer in the real world. What would happen to a basketball team that loses every game by 60 points? What would happen to a football team that loses every game 7:0?

Attendance will disappear, there will be less and less people paying for tickets, and a lot less people buying season tickets for next year. Merchandise profit will be much lower as well.

So.. I think to solve the problem, BBs will have to change the arena attendance algorithm. Tanking teams should no longer get 400k+ in gate receipts. Losing every game should have a much more severe effect on this income. Plus, defeats by 50,60 or 70 point and more, should result in a much lower attendance in the next home game.

GS downgrading is silly, given that players will be able to regain good GS in 1, maximum 2 weeks.

Increasing salary floor will not work either, since this will punish teams that create strong balanced rosters with lower salaries, but are still competitive.

GS downgrading is silly, given that players will be able to regain good by GS in by 1, maximum 2 weeks

Downgrade by 3 for example works if you buy before PO. Its not a main tool against tanking, it could be additional short term tool.

Thought I would weigh in with a few more comments as the discussion seems to be continuing pretty well...

Moving the transfer deadline kind of kills the market. That's the problem. I think BB's try to avoid killing the market completely. I agree GS to 1 might be a bit too harsh. But dropping GS by 2 levels per transfer would be ok change.

I'm not sure that moving the transfer deadline would kill the transfer market. It would definitely decrease the transfer market in the last few games of the season, but if teams wanted to buy/sell players, this would all be done in the first half of the season anyway. It doesn't kill the market, it just moves those transactions to earlier in the season and we would all adapt accordingly.

I think lowering game shape on all transfers would have a much more negative impact on the market than what moving the transfer deadline would.

I think game shape drops are a bit harsh for managers that are just trying to upgrade their roster, cover for an injury, etc. I don't think they are th best solution to combat tanking. Hardcore tankers don't care about results anyway, so the game shape drops are of no consequence to them.

If the idea behind the game shape drops is to make it difficult to buy players in before the transfer deadline, the easier solution (and one that will impact less people in a negative way) would be to just move the transfer deadline.

-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

Not a bad suggestion. It would certainly add another element to the skill of managing your team.

-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

There's a 'soft' salary cap at the moment anyway, in that you can't pay out in wages more than you can sustain through income. Obviously if you have saved up a bunch of cash you might be able to afford to pay higher wages, but you can't run your team at a loss week after week indefinitely.

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.

That's fair enough. Provided you don't tank to save money, just so you can buy up a bunch of monster players a few days before a relegation series, then I don't have any problem with this way of playing the game.

The goal shouldn't be to totally eliminate saving money, getting a high draft pick and training as a strategy for being successful, it just needs to not be the optimal strategy. If a team is prepared to demote to achieve this, then I don't really have a problem with it. It's when they used their saved money to buy a win in a relegation series (especially if it's at the expense of a team that is doing their best to compete) that I have a big problem with it.

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.

Buy player = GS Downgrade (1st half of season -1, 2nd half -2,
week or two before playoff -3) except if players GS lower 5;

This would have a pretty big impact on the transfer market and I'm not sure if this suggestion would actually improve the game experience? Sure, it would be different, but I'm not actually sure that it would be better.