BuzzerBeater Forums

I don't think it is quite that simple.

I have enough players to cover the minutes...the problem I face is that I am a newly promoted Div III team with a developing roster. It is tough enough being competitive in the league but I just don't have the money to be (realistically competitive) in both the league and cup without risking game shape of my better players (which would again make me less competitive). Playing average teams would see me struggle to win, which will see my revenue drop, which will make it difficult to bring in new players to support my trainees.

I don't think it would be unreasonable to have the ideal minutes range widened...70-75 minutes would allow those teams who rely on their stars to at least suit them up for all three games and leave them at the bottom of the roster while using depth chart until 4th (in one game). Managers would still not be able to use their stars as starters for all three games but it would make the leagues and cup a little more competitive as if they really need to they can still call on their stars for a few extra minutes.

Whether its a game design issue is up for the community to decide.

Strange, I thought it was up to the game designers.

Thanks for dodging my point, but even that petty comment isn't all that true. I'd guess that the designers value their customers a little more then you.

I disagree, lots of well managed teams throw games.

This statement is an oxymoron, I'm sorry. A team that doesn't throw games is managed better than a team that does, therefore this _is_ an issue of poor management.

The game is designed for teams to have depth and rotate players more then teams do in real life.

NBA teams carry 15 players. I'm pretty sure that a BB team with 15 decent players won't have to throw a game, ever. So no, this is not true.

Thanks for dodging my point, but even that petty comment isn't all that true. I'd guess that the designers value their customers a little more then you.

And lastly, while user feedback is definitely important, I am pretty sure that the desigers hae a vision of what their game should look like, and don't expect users to design it for them (most of the time). Even more so having in mind that a lot of those game design issues come for people who would rather have the game adapted to their playing style than vice versa.

Last edited by GM-kozlodoev at 9/29/2009 9:49:41 PM

A team that doesn't throw games is managed better than a team that does, therefore this _is_ an issue of poor management

What about a team that throws many road games to build up enthusiasm and game shape to ensure winning enough home games to avoid demoting? That team is better managed then a team that doesn't throw games it doesn't have much chance of winning and ends up demoting.

I'm pretty sure that a BB team with 15 decent players won't have to throw a game, ever. So no, this is not true.

A team with 15 decent players could easily lose more games then a team with 9 good players and 6 scrubs. A team that has 15 decent players on the road against a team with 9 good players might be wise to TIE and start the weaker of the 15 decent players and aim to win games they have a better chance in.

And lastly, while user feedback is definitely important, I am pretty sure that the desigers hae a vision of what their game should look like, and don't expect users to design it for the

And if enough people feel that an aspect of the game is designed poorly I'm certain the BB's will work hard to address the issue. That's really not the point of this thread though.

For me it is a matter of priorities, and something that should be accepted as part of the game. If you want to have a roster of 15 players who can all perform at a decent level, you could have that with a team salary of around 500-600k. That is attainable for d.1 teams, I think. If you want to have a team that concentrates on the legaue, you need 8-10 good players. If you want a team just for going deep into the cup you could do that with 5-7 great players. The problem I see is when people start expecting to be able to win everything all the time without any obstacles put up against them.

That team is better managed then a team that doesn't throw games it doesn't have much chance of winning and ends up demoting.

And worse managed that a team that doesn't throw games and ends up not demoting. I think we're running in circles here.

A team with 15 decent players could easily lose more games then a team with 9 good players and 6 scrubs. A team that has 15 decent players on the road against a team with 9 good players might be wise to TIE and start the weaker of the 15 decent players and aim to win games they have a better chance in.

A team with 6 scrubs has either (a) given up on the cup, (b) given up on the league, or (c) running his 9 good players to the ground. So the total win tally can easily go the other way, either.

And worse managed that a team that doesn't throw games and ends up not demoting. I think we're running in circles here.

I wasn't the one speaking in absolutes.

A team with 6 scrubs has either (a) given up on the cup, (b) given up on the league, or (c) running his 9 good players to the ground. So the total win tally can easily go the other way, either.

I've never had more then 8, maybe 9, players deep. None of those 3 apply in this case.


Last edited by brian at 9/29/2009 11:17:14 PM

I think you are misunderstanding the financial aspect of the roster structure and the reasons why managers opt to use a strong 8/9 vs an unneccessary (IMO) 12+ roster. It boils down to what would you prefer for your money.

a) 8-9 players with $600-700k combined salary and then scrubs OR
b) 11/12+ players with $600-700k combined salary (weaker starting 5) OR
c) 8/9 of the core players in b) without 3 strong back ups which could amount to a weekly wage saving of $100k+ per week.

Bottom line is you can be competitve and can aim to achieve your end of season goals (league/cup/both) throwing games or attempting to win them both.

I am sure that in this example, Brianjames is confident he can throw a game here and there and still be on track to hit his goals without having to spend $100-150k more in wages per week (@2mil per season) and the outlay of purchasing those players. In a 14 week season with injuires/key matches I would argue keeping a money reserve to use if needbe is much better than investing in more players that are close to the skills of your core guys.

If there was a pool of amazing 27-30yo's (not quite there yet) that were past trainable age but very good roster players then we might see these kind of players start appearing in teams as opposed to the basic scrubs you buy and sack before the economic update. But to pay a premium for a 10th/11th decent player that is unlikey to get training and is only there to assist with a few mins here and there and as back up to injuries is not yet worth it.

Your roster of 5 strong players 2-3 bench guys and 3-4 scrubs puts you in the c category which allows you to bank more money throughout the season. This is fine for Bulgaria or indeed Japan but in other countries you would have to step up to a squad more like a) or b) to be competitive. I guess until you are faced with the dilemma of what to do (invest and try to keep winning vs stay as I am and lose a couple of games) you are not in as great a position to judge others choices.

The flipside to the money argument is that losing a game decreases revenue from future games and possibly merchandising, but I still believe this is less than the money saved from unecessary wages. On that note I will stop as I'm not the greatest one to talk about salary management :D (although I am still making a profit!!)

im glad to see the question is now set and not throw away in rubbish bin like it was before, so issue exists(bb's thx for ur reading)