BuzzerBeater Forums

My opinion - what is allowed is legal. such problems are the fault of game designers and not the players. if he had a roaster of 5 or even 10 $1K salary players doing the same, nobody should even mention it. Exploiting "holes" in the mechanism is a part of the real world. it happens everywhere, not just in this game. So our job is to suggest BB-ers how not let such things happen.

Forbidding to have a roaster below X players will not help because one may just buy 10-15 players with 1K$ salary each. What can be done is that the TV contract money plus merchandise will not exceed the summary of player salaries, otherwise the difference will be reduced first from merchandise and then (if there is still a difference) - from TV contract.

The attendance should depend much more on the results, not only W/L, but also the difference. For example losing by more than 100 at home will lead to no attendance at all. losing by 50 means that only half of attendees that should be in this game (according to today`s rules) will actually attend, and so on. Technical forefits will also lead to no attenders of course.

In this case, this guy should have ZERO income!

regardless its still not cheating

Agree it isnt cheating but it is stupid. While you can't force a team to play a decent team - have a look at NJ or WAS this season, you can force them to play some sort of team. If a team dresses less than 5 players for a game they should be "fined" their weekly TV money and gate money. Easily solved. While playing a bunch of "b" team scrubs isn't the best it does make more sense than playing no-one at all.

A more difficult fix would be doing something about their season ticket holders that could have a long term impact that would put people off doing this. I think this should also apply to people who tank a season and I am in this situation right now where I could do that but I am still trying.

i think this is it really - im sure the designers never thought this would be appropriate and/or correctly rewarded given there seems to be little negative impact on total revenues.

5 reasons for restricting zero-rostering or changing the financial consequences of doing so, are in bold below:

From the BB front page:

"Have you got what it takes to be the best?

BuzzerBeater is an online basketball simulation game that pits you against other managers across the planet. Play head-to-head against other challengers, employing strategic game play and statistical analysis. Go beyond fantasy basketball and run your own franchise.

Take your team to the top of your league. Then continue up the BuzzerBeater ranks to beat out managers from around the world. No excuses. No retreat. Just you and 59254 opponents who would like nothing better than to run you out of the gym.

Realistic basketball action. Play the most advanced basketball simulation and coaching AI ever released. Watch games live on a state-of-the-art viewer.
You're the manager. You pick the players, you train them, and you tell them how to play. Want a bigger arena? Build it. Want to draft a superstar? It's all about scouting. You make the decisions and you’re in charge!

BuzzerBeater never sleeps, so why should you? Sign up now to play against the greatest basketball managers in the world. And hey... it’s free!"

I think the last reason says it all!

Last edited by Fluff at 5/23/2010 7:10:57 AM

You're the manager. You pick the players, you train them, and you tell them how to play. Want a bigger arena? Build it. Want to draft a superstar? It's all about scouting. You make the decisions and you’re in charge!

That supports the argument that he has the right to not have any players at all and still receive a lot of income.

Although I think that if you forfeit a game, there should simply be no attendance money. No need to affect tv income of fine people etc. No attendance money is more than enough of a deterrant.

Agreed.

You're the manager. You pick the players, you train them, and you tell them how to play. Want a bigger arena? Build it. Want to draft a superstar? It's all about scouting. You make the decisions and you’re in charge!

That supports the argument that he has the right to not have any players at all and still receive a lot of income.

Although I think that if you forfeit a game, there should simply be no attendance money. No need to affect tv income of fine people etc. No attendance money is more than enough of a deterrant.

And just how exactly does that support not having players? If instead it said, "You're the manager. You pick the players. Or if you want, pick no players at all." Then I could see your point. But no where does it even hint at having a roster with 0 players. And in response to the Israel poster, yes, cheaters and exploiters are a part of life. It still doesn't make what they do any less illegal just because they had the means to do it. And they certainly do pay a price for doing it.

other possibility:

Agreed but even if the injury chance is small, I would not take it. As for the experience gain, I guess that depends if the trained players are being trained for use later or to be sold. If they are to be sold, a half level of experience (or less) is probably not worth it.

But it is just a question of philosophy and your personal feelings about taking risks. ;-)

This interesting discussion reminds me a bit of the "big vs small countries" debate from a while ago, and the suggestion there (originally by LA-Emilio) to link a team's revenue to salary expenditure. I believe the BBs hinted then that this suggestion was not picked up because it would prevent new teams in tiny communities from catching up with established teams in their (first or second division) league. For the same reason a simple link between salary expenditure and income is probably not the solution here either.

There's a main differebce between the two questions
having zero players in the roster is a matter which affect the single managers,that have to value the advantages and the disadvantages of this kond of choices.I can say you that,where there is a strong competition,this strategy is dangerous and often give damages to the managers who play it.You are not sure that you can rise from the lower divisons to the top again
Big vs small country is a general question,because all the people had to use the market

Although I think that if you forfeit a game, there should simply be no attendance money. No need to affect tv income of fine people etc.

Well if there is no match, not have to be any sold tickets. Therefore it sounds to me like a bug.