BuzzerBeater Forums

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.

I've seen a few suggestions that requiring teams to avoid a forfeit in order to receive arena revenue would solve the problem. We can definitely look at doing something like this if it would help, but I don't understand why it really solves the problem. If we instituted this rule, wouldn't a team using this strategy simply then hire a few very cheap players and lose games by 100 points instead of by forfeit?

Yes, probably, but you're talking about two different things. Even in the real world you have cheap owners that refuse to spend money on talent and are well below the salary cap. If, however, they were to fire all their players, I'm pretty sure they'd find themselves out of the NBA (and I don't mean in a relegation sense, I mean kicked out). And they certainly wouldn't be getting any revenue. Call me crazy but one of the attractions that games like BuzzerBeater have is the somewhat sense of realism. You feel like you're really managing a team. To leave a glaringly unrealistic loophole in the game simply because "it doesn't happen often enough so it's not worth the time" sounds a bit lazy and disappointing to hear.

And I don't think anyone is complaining about or even mentioning players throwing games on purpose. The argument here is getting rid of all your players to eliminate salary expense and hoarding tv and ticket revenue from forfeited games. To buy yourself an all-star team that can steamroll through the competition once you get relegated and you'll be fully re-loaded for another run in the top flight.

Oh, and one more thing. If this person really left the game, like another BB had suggested, then why hasn't he been botted yet? His transfer sales are from the end of March. If that was really his last activity in the game, wouldn't he have been converted to bot by now? Obviously he's still playing the game in some form.

Last edited by ShootingStars at 5/24/2010 11:54:11 PM

I totally agree with Charles that punishment for game forfeit will not actually help, because one should just buy $1K players and fill the squad. On the other hand, making TV revenue strictly depended on players salaries (with maximum like today), and attendance income depended not only on result, but also on the point difference - these changes might help a lot.

I also think that the mechanism of training and GS cause many managers (and me among them) to give up a lot of games in order to train effectively and maintain GS, especially while staying in the cup. Such a behavior may cause several teams unfairly not to enter to playoffs (for example after losing to a strongest team which decided to play with backups and consequently lose to the rival team which finally found themselves in playoffs unfairly).

In order to courage the managers to play mainly with their strongest squad, dependence on played minutes should be changed. Kobe and LeBrone play 40+ minutes every game and still perform at the top level. 100 weekly minutes should not harm the shape of a player. Furthermore, the effectiveness of training with less 48 weekly minutes should be linearly proportional, so players with 20-25 played minutes will still have a relatively good training.

I've seen a few suggestions that requiring teams to avoid a forfeit in order to receive arena revenue would solve the problem. We can definitely look at doing something like this if it would help, but I don't understand why it really solves the problem. If we instituted this rule, wouldn't a team using this strategy simply then hire a few very cheap players and lose games by 100 points instead of by forfeit?

It is like that and if there exist an option to have zero roster, which have in fact destructive result for the club, there isnt anything wrong about it, while it is quite similar like having on roster very cheap players.

If you take it as a strategy for the events where is club temporary saving power (like league games while playing cups), is quite understandable that behaviour like this is in fact a necessary tactical factor, therefore is impossible to avoid any kind of misapplication...

If there would exist any strong (even just) attendance decrease, it would mean that would be impossible to play cups or B3 succesfully with thin roster, because of losing money thanks to much lower attendance in league games than teams with wide roster. Aditionally these from small countries would have advantage even bigger.

So the only thing is to punish relegated teams even stronger. I know that team is punished enough to be relegated, have lesser income etc. But usually that is because of poor decisions (or by the decision to give up), therefore a logic which fail and doesnt understand the game mechanisms. Why should have any stronger advantage on the league below then?
I mean mostly are promoted teams developing themselves for a long time to do that.
At this point it is not like that re-promotion is something usual, but is usual that these teams are winning most of their games, so these managers live in the illusion that are handling their team well and just had a bad luck, will repeat same mistakes and by the time become even more frustrated. It is about motivation to change theirs behaviour and will to learn something about the game.

Why would you have a problem with that? By getting to Div 1he'd already shown he has a team which can promote already.

Also the way your ideal mechanism works makes no sense to me. Rather, the promoted team should be glad to make playoffs and the relegated team should expect to make them (if competing).

:)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

Sounds strange, doesnt it?

There are various things which get promoted team into longterm struggle. Stadium capacity, other kind of players, other kind of staff etc.

On the other side relegated team already have these things, therefore doesnt have to do decisions which put him into any struggle.

If the system offer options to make a mistakes, be it. More mistakes managers can make, better for the game. However everytime is huge mistake (relegation) made without any need for thinking about change in club management, is that manager subconsciously confident about external reasons that it ended up like that. Therefore stick at the same system of playing. And indeed will stick on it if will lose only like 4 games next season, relegated.

Last edited by aigidios at 5/25/2010 6:40:22 AM

i agree with everything you have said but i do have a reason/question why i think the rule should be implemented anyway.

is the player with 0 players stopping every manager that plays him that week from one pos training 3 players (full 48 mins) for that week?

if yes then i think the rule has to be implemented. (or a change of mins for such games or both.)


if no then its fine as it is.

simple

Last edited by zyler at 5/25/2010 10:04:50 AM

Well obviously forfeits are stopping other managers from getting 48 minutes for 1 position training for all their trainees.

I think that all that needs to be changed is that forfeited games result in no arena income for the team that forfeits.
Then I don't care whether the team has 3 players or 0 players or 100 players.

Other managers might be annoyed that their trainee only gets 43 minutes instead of 48 minutes in the event of a forfeit, however they should realise that they get a gauranteed win, and they get decent minutes for their players and there is no chance of injury.
So at the end of the day it is probably even.

Well, now I'm convinced. Thanks for the thorough explanation, Charles. Yeah, I guess when you break down the numbers like that it does seem to deflate the strategy.