BuzzerBeater Forums

BB Global (English) > "zero" rostering - right or wrong?!

"zero" rostering - right or wrong?!

Set priority
Show messages by
This Post:
00
144528.38 in reply to 144528.11
Date: 5/24/2010 3:02:21 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
506506
I think people raised some very good points in this thread, although I just want to make clear such a tactic is by no means cheating. There are many situations in BuzzerBeater where you have to choose between long or short term success. In some situations you choose to sacrifice some short term succes in order to gain more long term succes and visa versa, for example selling a starplayer to invest in awesome rookies, or buyin your new Lebron instead of expanding your arena.

As maleshka already pointed out in (144528.10), this manager probably, unfortunately, decided to quit the game and therefore sold his whole roster.
But let's say he really choose to do what the original poster suggest he did; sacrificing tons of short term succes in order to be able to bounce back in the long term. I really doubt the effectiveness of such a tactic. As Steve Karenn already pointed out, in many divisions you are not guaranteed to promote back straight away with a new roster. Relegation is disastrous for your economy, and quite some people underestimate the (financial) effects of being relegated.
Let's say you apply this tactic in the top division which earns your an extra $500k/wk, this is about 7M per season. In most top divisions you can buy just 1 new starter for your team, I'm not sure if that's worth relegating.

This Post:
00
144528.40 in reply to 144528.38
Date: 5/24/2010 4:01:16 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
4040
Try to see the result. That team will have much stronger advantage upon other II. div teams next season, because didnt spend anything to avoid his situation.

It is economically less valuable strategy than trying to fight and stay in I. div, however it makes his future life much easier.

This Post:
00
144528.41 in reply to 144528.40
Date: 5/24/2010 4:14:11 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
506506
I'm not sure where this advantage comes from. The relegated team has to play the full season with a worse economy than the D2 team. The relegated team starts with an empty roster, while the D2 team got a top class roster already.
I don't think you can buy yourself the title in most D2's starting with an empty roster, and 35m cash in bank. Especially if you have to buy a few rookies so that, even if you might promote, you can compete in D1.
But sure there might be situations where this tactic is effective. I can imagine it would be effective in some of the cases Coco mentioned, but is this a bad thing?

As long as people play within the bounds of the game, without breaking the rules, I'm not gonna judge a strategy someone uses to reach the top.

This Post:
00
144528.43 in reply to 144528.41
Date: 5/24/2010 5:04:17 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
4040
The relegated team has to play the full season with a worse economy


Im suprised everytime I see a problem, that it is partially solved somehow.

I dont know what was the motivation to apply this rule, but the main issue I had about the relegated team was that it could have a team which can promote right away, therefore will create bigger problem to anyone else who want to promote.

See - ideally (imo) the mechanism works like that - promoted teams have a good chance to reach playoff next season, relegated teams are glad to reach playoff next season.

:)

From: BB-Patrick

To: Coco
This Post:
00
144528.44 in reply to 144528.42
Date: 5/24/2010 5:16:48 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
506506
You're right, I should have stated it slighty different. Luckely you understood what I meant, if one partical way of playing the game starts to largy dominate the other strategies, then we might have to see whether something has to be done.

Daytrading was getting to excessive and thus it gained too much of an advantage above other strategies, I don't think this is the case with 'zero-rostering'.

From: ig
This Post:
00
144528.45 in reply to 144528.44
Date: 5/24/2010 6:00:00 PM
Jerusalem TET
II.4
Overall Posts Rated:
207207
Second Team:
Jerusalem TET Utopia
According to info of his team, he has bout 45-50 millions, not 35. With this amount of cash he can build a team that will beat easily almost every team in BB, not just D2. 5 6M+ starters plus 5 3M backups for instance. The economic reduce due to relegation is miserable comparing to the huge unrealistic income from attendance and TV.

This Post:
00
144528.46 in reply to 144528.45
Date: 5/24/2010 6:19:54 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
4545
I stated this before based on his current arena prices:

Since he sold all his players he got from the Arena:

$ 2,951,330


So lets assume that till the end of the season he can get $4,000,000.

Do you really think that will make the difference?

You are all saying it is wrong that he has 0 roster and still has attendance and Tv revenue. I do agree partly with that but, althought it seems he has an huge advantage over the other teams of the II division or so, I can't agree with that. He sold ALL his players and he got 30,000,000. The money he had before on his account was his own profit without any kind of "cheeting" and now, he can raise 4,000,000 more over his huge budget.

And if a team from the II division decides to sell all the players as well? Maybe they could raise 30,000,000 as well. And if they had already 10,000,000 on the account as some of you already stated this guy has. Then, they would have 40,000,000 on the account. Is the 4,000,000 really going to make the difference now? Or you are all so attached to your players that you can't even think in this strategy?

To conclude, I do agree that the moeny from the arena is ridiculous without roster but I can't agree that this his giving him such a huge advantage over the other teams!

Message deleted
This Post:
00
144528.48 in reply to 144528.41
Date: 5/24/2010 10:18:14 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
196196

As long as people play within the bounds of the game, without breaking the rules, I'm not gonna judge a strategy someone uses to reach the top.


Do you not view these as loopholes as opposed to strategies? It seems that you wish to purposely allow these so called skewed strategies to occur rather than having people highlight loopholes and then closing them?

Day trading is now under control, but buying after the economic update playing once and selling isnt. Having 0 players then springing an attack up the rankings is now acceptable as well...

Having $35mil right now could quite comfortably catapult you up most ladders in most divisions. If it isnt $35mil then wait til you have $40mil (by which time a triple tremdous big man might cost you $750k :D)

Its no problem either way as long as everyone knows that 'anything goes' and its not frowned upon. It just seems contradictory to add more 'realism' to the game engine and other facets of the game and then ignore other points which often infuriate the majority of your userbase when they point out areas which still don't appear up to scratch.


Advertisement