BuzzerBeater Forums

Suggestions > Suggestion to make teams "tanking" less

Suggestion to make teams "tanking" less

Set priority
Show messages by
This Post:
00
219023.24 in reply to 219023.23
Date: 6/15/2012 8:59:02 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
394394
I have no problems with being penalized for not field atleast 5 players.

However, there are real basketball games, when star players are not suited for risk of injury, when their is nothing to play for.
Example, win or lose the team is going to be the number 4 seed, so they don't dress Joe Johnson or Al Horford. It does happen.

Every game I field a team I feel is capable of winning, whether or not, its my best players. My schedule this week is a perfect example. I can pretty much roll out any line-up I'd like and get the W's. I shouldn't be forced to have play all my star players in 1 or Each game. If I want to break up my 6 best players and split them up in pairs of 2 and field the rest of the line-up with filler players, I should have that right and not be punished for it.

Last edited by WFUnDina at 6/15/2012 8:59:44 PM

This Post:
00
219023.25 in reply to 219023.24
Date: 6/15/2012 9:28:13 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
2222
win or lose the team is going to be the number 4 seed, so they don't dress Joe Johnson or Al Horford. It does happen.


Nope... they still suit up/gear up/dress up, only that they are DNP - Coach decision.

In BB terms... they still have to be included in the lineup... just find a way to not let them play. And I can think of one way that this feat could be achieved.

I shouldn't be forced to have play all my star players in 1 or Each game.


In this case, BB's they should have match-up breakdown. whether this lineup you submitted could be worth watching, and if you manage to win the game, then you have no problem, since you won. (that made the game more interesting to watch, too.)

But if you lose, and you lose a lot, and that your star players are not included in the selected lineups, then, something's wrong with that.

From: Axis123

This Post:
00
219023.27 in reply to 219023.26
Date: 6/15/2012 11:00:43 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
299299
Losing teams should lose, money too!!!
Not necessarily lose money but make less money than winning teams.

To make this work out, though, there has to be more emphasis on basketball strategy than money management. The money management part is important, but I think it far outweighs the basketball strategy in this game. It'd be great to see this equalled out a bit.

This Post:
00
219023.28 in reply to 219023.27
Date: 6/15/2012 11:52:16 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
126126
Were the Detroit Lions making money when they were 0-16?
Were the Detroit Tigers making money when they lost 114 Games?
Were the Bobcats making money this year?

Honest question. Just wondering, were they red those years, or green?

From: Mix
This Post:
33
219023.29 in reply to 219023.25
Date: 6/16/2012 12:07:43 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
129129
Sanctioning body? Comprised of whom? As a customer I prefer resources allocated to game development than to regulation. Lineups are none of admins concern.

Even just sorting out from who's "tanking" and who is just a garbage manager would make only a pursuit, never an attainment.

It begs the question, what about when the inevitable happens and you penalize a bad manager that really isn't tanking. It could make a bad situation worse and he quits the game. Alienating and penalizing active users more often then not is lose/lose.

"Tanking" is a strategy. Regardless of which strategy is applied, the manager is still actively managing. That is where it begins and ends for me. I see plenty of shoddy managers that drive down league quality without tanking. There are even complete leagues that are like that.

Last edited by Mix at 6/16/2012 12:08:28 AM

This Post:
00
219023.30 in reply to 219023.29
Date: 6/16/2012 12:16:13 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
126126
Even just sorting out from who's "tanking" and who is just a garbage manager would make only a pursuit, never an attainment.

It begs the question, what about when the inevitable happens and you penalize a bad manager that really isn't tanking. It could make a bad situation worse and he quits the game. Alienating and penalizing active users more often then not is lose/lose.

"Tanking" is a strategy. Regardless of which strategy is applied, the manager is still actively managing. That is where it begins and ends for me. I see plenty of shoddy managers that drive down league quality without tanking. There are even complete leagues that are like that.


Ok... What about some form of system/ranking thing for managers.
You receive values/scores based on managing ability. Decisions that are good, winning games you shouldn't have, losing games you should have won. Mismanaging a key players minutes and messing up their game shape. Expanding luxury boxes when you're not even selling them out already, etc. Things like that.
Higher rating better, worse rating/negative rating worse obviously.

with this, can determine good managers from bad managers. Then can determine tanking. Have a thing where you can see their "managerial" history, just like scouting a team's schedule or roster moves etc. If they had a rating of 800, but 2 seasons later are 330, yeah... obviously they've been tanking. If they are at a 30 and don't do well. Maybe they just plan suck.

This Post:
00
219023.31 in reply to 219023.28
Date: 6/16/2012 12:31:02 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
299299
Were the Detroit Lions making money when they were 0-16?
Were the Detroit Tigers making money when they lost 114 Games?
Were the Bobcats making money this year?

Honest question. Just wondering, were they red those years, or green?

Honest answer: I don't know. They were probably losing money, though.

Problem is: this is a video game. People play video games to have fun. If you make it so that it's too hard, people won't play. I think there's a balance. If managers who constantly lose earn less money, people will still play and, hopefully, try to learn more about basketball strategy.

From: Axis123

To: Mix
This Post:
00
219023.32 in reply to 219023.29
Date: 6/16/2012 12:35:08 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
299299
It begs the question, what about when the inevitable happens and you penalize a bad manager that really isn't tanking. It could make a bad situation worse and he quits the game. Alienating and penalizing active users more often then not is lose/lose.

Alienating and penalising I don't think is what is meant by dealing with the issue of tanking. I think it's more about giving managers who don't have a clue less than managers who do. If you do badly, should you receive rewards? No, you shouldn't. If you consistently make good decisions, do you receive rewards? Yes, you should.

This Post:
00
219023.34 in reply to 219023.30
Date: 6/16/2012 1:57:23 AM
Mountain Eagles
III.1
Overall Posts Rated:
788788
Second Team:
Ric Flair Drippers

Ok... What about some form of system/ranking thing for managers.
You receive values/scores based on managing ability. Decisions that are good, winning games you shouldn't have, losing games you should have won. Mismanaging a key players minutes and messing up their game shape. Expanding luxury boxes when you're not even selling them out already, etc. Things like that.



1. Example; Bode-Diggity Dogs, from my league, crazy manager don't know what he's doing, but he got a higher country rank than me?!

3 Time NBBA Champion. Certified Trainer. Mentor. Have any questions? Feel free to shoot me a BB-Mail!
Advertisement