BuzzerBeater Forums

Currently, you have the choice to throw a game, to mix up your minutes as best as you can to try to win all three games, or any combination thereof, depending on your assessment of which game(s) you can win or lose and how important you value each of the three games.

Unacceptable choices in a sim of athletic competition. In athletics one competes to win. In a sim of athletic competition it should be the same. This is not a game of athletic competition nor even the management of a competitive athletic team, as it purports to be. Anyone looking for a sim of athletic competition, such as basketball, will either be disappointed or accept that this game is something else entirely (as many have obviously done). Question: why on earth in a sim of athletic competition would there be issues of playing your players out of position, throwing games, tanking, etc.? Answer: there wouldn't be.

Look, I know you'd prefer the easy button mode where all you do is set one lineup and they play for you in perpetuity, and that therefore the team with the best roster (usually exactly equivalent to the most money and longest tenure) wins almost every time. But believe it or not, life isn't like that either - pitchers start one out of every four games, NHL goalies rarely if ever play both games of a back to back, European soccer (football) teams often play younger lineups in their Cup competitions and shuffle through more than their best XI plus five subs during the course of a couple weeks of competition.

But humor us: what does a "one lineup for every game" mode *ADD* to the game? How does it make it better, more fun, more challenging, more of anything other than placating your "everything has to make sense" fetish?

But humor us: what does a "one lineup for every game" mode *ADD* to the game? How does it make it better, more fun, more challenging, more of anything other than placating your "everything has to make sense" fetish?

You tell me, it's your idea, certainly not mine. And is that really the best response you have? C'mon, how about elevating the conversation.

But humor us: what does a "one lineup for every game" mode *ADD* to the game? How does it make it better, more fun, more challenging, more of anything other than placating your "everything has to make sense" fetish?

You tell me, it's your idea, certainly not mine. And is that really the best response you have? C'mon, how about elevating the conversation.

My idea is this: figure out what the hell it is you want, actually put some thought and propose specifics, and I'd be delighted to discuss your ideas with you. If you can elevate your ideas beyond "I don't like this, it doesn't make sense, it's not a simulation" litany it would certainly be productive.

Or, of course, you can continue to throw out complaints about game design (which generally all involve you wanting to eliminate all choice and consequence with no corresponding increase in complexity) and attack me or anyone else when called out for it. Just don't ask to have an adult conversation if your participation level is going to be one that would embarrass me coming from my five year old.

which generally all involve you wanting to eliminate all choice and consequence with no corresponding increase in complexity

Wow, you sure get upset when you get caught putting words in my mouth that I never said or would say (such as "I know you'd prefer the easy button mode where all you do is set one lineup and they play for you in perpetuity.") It is painfully obvious you don't have a clue what I advocate. To refresh your memory, I have consistently advocated for athletic competition rather than who-can-amass-millions-of-dollars, logical training rather than illogical Hattrick derivatives, and opportunity for lower- and mid-level teams that is sorely lacking currently.
That should sound familiar to you, because a lot of people advocate the same things I do. I sure wish you would quit your personal attacks on me. Isn't a GM supposed to set an example? A lot of us were discussing buzzerbeater and the proposed luxury tax, so please let us get back to our discussion. Thank you.

Last edited by Mike Franks at 11/18/2015 1:31:19 AM

I see what your saying about tanking but I don't think you should take such a hard line approach to dealing with it. You mentioned that tanking undermines the competitive nature of the game, which is true, but tanking can also be a strategy for long term continued success at the top level.

I started the game around Season 23. Each season I competed to the best of my abilities with winning the league championship being my main goal. I managed my finances well, built up my arena and made what I thought were good purchases. This strategy worked reasonably well until I got to the Div 1. Attempting a championship run, I managed to put together a financially sustainable roster with 4 NT players, and only 1 player older than 32, but I was only able to make the semis. I just didn't have the financial depth to compete with older teams run by strong and experienced managers. Some of those teams, who didn't even seem to be competing for the championship, probably had many millions in the bank while at the same time fielding better rosters than mine.

At that point I could have stayed on the same path, remaining reasonably competitive, but probably not winning anything for the foreseeable future. I choose to tank however, because I thought it a better long term decision that would allow me to come back stronger and be a future perennial title contender in Div 1.

Also, taking away tanking as a strategy at this point seems a little unfair seeing as so many older teams have already benefited from it, some doing it even before there was a salary floor.

I see what your saying about tanking but I don't think you should take such a hard line approach to dealing with it. You mentioned that tanking undermines the competitive nature of the game, which is true, but tanking can also be a strategy for long term continued success at the top level.

I started the game around Season 23. Each season I competed to the best of my abilities with winning the league championship being my main goal. I managed my finances well, built up my arena and made what I thought were good purchases. This strategy worked reasonably well until I got to the Div 1. Attempting a championship run, I managed to put together a financially sustainable roster with 4 NT players, and only 1 player older than 32, but I was only able to make the semis. I just didn't have the financial depth to compete with older teams run by strong and experienced managers. Some of those teams, who didn't even seem to be competing for the championship, probably had many millions in the bank while at the same time fielding better rosters than mine.

At that point I could have stayed on the same path, remaining reasonably competitive, but probably not winning anything for the foreseeable future. I choose to tank however, because I thought it a better long term decision that would allow me to come back stronger and be a future perennial title contender in Div 1.

Also, taking away tanking as a strategy at this point seems a little unfair seeing as so many older teams have already benefited from it, some doing it even before there was a salary floor.

So in the midst of all this... you're hitting the nail right on the head.

Why is it, that it is more profitable to an organization to intentionally take yourself out of playoff contention, lose games, and then buy a superstar team?

Why is that more profitable than being a team that makes the playoffs 3-4-5-6 years in a row, and does a little better each time?

That's the real issue.

I have 21.5 mil.
If you make me to buy some players, and other teams like me- you will totally ruin the market.

We are not the problem in the market. We are sleepy teams. I don't have time in real life to study the game, but I like the people here and the game- as the best basketball game in the net.

If teams like me will buy players because you force them- the market will be really really crazy. We and our money are not the problem.

And off-course, there are other reasons to declare this offer- especially about training.
Bigger teams will not sell 1-2 player from their roster to find place for young players to train. if they make 5 mil for example, and they will have for example at least 5 mil, so you make them for example to pay 50k per week- or 25k- you will make them to pay hundreds of k $ per season- mil for couple of seasons because they tried to training.

Let every one play as we want or can.

*Just want to add that my plan was to buy 2 extremely talented players next season, and then train them + buying the best players I will be able.
It's a basket ball, but money is a big important part too.

Don't kill the players that want to play but can't do that well as the others.

Last edited by Noam Zaig at 11/18/2015 2:57:57 AM

All you guys threatening to quit are beyond ridiculous.Panicking because of nothing, really.You have no clue how this tax will look like and yet you are handling this situation as if you were burning alive...

I expect this tax to hit teams above 20-30 million and only the money above this line being taxed, so we are talking about five digit losses... Uuuuuuh, big deal! Lets jump out of the window. Or spend some more on better staff, bench players, scouting or whatever and you will be fine...

You have no clue how this tax will look like and yet you are handling this situation as if you were burning alive..

I think it's funny that you chastise owners for their reaction when they know not how this tax will look but then:

I expect this tax to hit teams above 20-30 million and only the money above this line being taxed,

How is it you have a clue what this will look like

your assessment may be the right one but your speculation is as good as theirs
Just saying

Last edited by Headless T Gunner at 11/18/2015 4:23:54 AM