BuzzerBeater Forums

Then what do you think does?

No, you totally missed what I was saying. Prices need to be *higher* relative to salaries. The money tanking players make is on salaries. The money they have to spend to make their suddenly good team when they binge, is on transfers. Decrease the salaries, and/or increase the transfer costs, and tanking doesn't work.

Question for you. How much would you think a player as a sg 15/15/16/12/12/12/1/1/1/1 and a player 14/14/15/11/11/11/6/7/6/7 worth respectively? Which one you would choose? Which one is higher salary, quote: "Prices need to be *higher* relative to salaries"?

Last edited by Rycka at 5/30/2012 3:25:59 PM

I'd guess the first has a higher salary, and I'd certainly rather have the second. So yes, I'd expect the transfer price ratio of the first to be lower than that of the second. Clearly in Div. III/IV, I'm used to players who are worse than either. I think it would be a better game if Salaries tracked actual player value better, because new players would make fewer mistakes, but that's a different issue really, and not one I'd stomp my feet about. And figuring that out is interesting too, so I can see it either way.

Because the salaries do track player value, not all players, even of a certain age group, should be valued at the same ratio of transfer price to salary, if that's your point. Still, there are players that will win you championships, at least in div III and IV, that cost way less than 2 or 3 times their annual salaries. Which is what makes it so that tanking for a few years lets you buy those players. If usable players cost 10x their annual salaries, you'd have to tank too many years to buy up a team, it wouldn't be worth it, and people wouldn't do it. The *gain* in tanking is in the cost of the salaries you aren't paying. The *cost* of binging is partly in the transfer costs you pay. Increase the cost relative to the gain, and it won't work.

Increase the cost relative to the gain, and it won't work.

While i do agree on this. But you should consider this... High salary burns your account of cash quickly when you have salary's above your league level. I won leagues with lower salary's than my opponent's in finals. That's a point too. And... I've seen tanking teams a lot. Neither of them are successful until now. Yes they "flash", for a short period of time. Show me a successful tanker, the one who is dominating for two or three seasons (or more).

Show me a successful tanker, the one who is dominating for two or three seasons (or more).

Tankers are already saving tons of money, getting the best draftees, not worrying about dealing with the minutes of their trainees, preparing the future more easily and you'd want someone to prove they can dominate also some leagues ?
Superman is not a tanker

I actually do not understand your post :) is this a sarcasm or irony? :)

I actually do not understand your post is this a sarcasm or irony?

Both. But first and foremost a" not aggressive joke" meaning that, of course, you won't find a tanker dominating his division while he is tanking, except int he lowest division if there is not another humain correct manager.
So I didn't understand the point to ask rhetorically about it in this thread whereas it is obvious that most of the tankers don't stay tankers for tons of season but, instead, take profit of it a few seasons and then generally have at least the same global results about the seasons to come than those trying to compete for this period by suddenly recruting big guys at the last moment.
THAT is the main starting observation that guides what has to be done about tanking

If a tanker stays a tanker for tons of season and trains, then he is actually a farmer, what is much different.
Here is a farmer : (35519)

Well he is a very good one, training very well. Still, he is last in the lowest divison. Because he doesnt care about succeeding. He just wants to train and wants to stay in the last position to get a good draftee.




Last edited by Dunker Joe at 5/30/2012 4:44:04 PM

most of the tankers don't stay tankers for tons of season but, instead, take profit of it a few seasons and then generally have at least the same global results about the seasons to come than those trying to compete for this period.

From my observations and experience, the last part of your sentence is false. They do some damage, i agree. But it is temporary. They do not dominate for two or three seasons more. They just vanish. Remember Venomous scorpions? Look:

In season 16, Venomous Scorpions won the B3
In season 17, Venomous Scorpions reached the finals of the B3
In season 18, Venomous Scorpions played in the group stage of B3 with 3 wins.
In season 19, Venomous Scorpions played in the group stage of B3 with 1 wins.

Last edited by Rycka at 5/30/2012 4:47:00 PM

Here is a farmer : (35519)

Well he is a very good one, training very well. Still, he is last in the lowest divison. Because he doesnt care about succeeding. He just wants to train and wants to stay in the last position to get a good draftee.

If you consider this as a farmer... Then you have not seen a real farmer :) If he's training good players, just because he wants to, i welcome that :D Good player is hard to find on TL.

Farmer, in my opinion, is the team that has lots of money and can sustain a high salaried player on good shape. Not that any NT would need that.

Another idea might be to have teams make no money on forfeited games. If I were a fan, I would want my ticket refunded after a forfeit. I would think the TV companies would be pissed as well, so maybe a decrease in the forfeiting team's (and only the forfeiting team's) TV contract for that week and the next. I also like the idea that someone mentioned about having a team who forfeited a match get no training that week.

Do you mean forfeit as a technical loss? I did lost one time because i have not set my standard line-up. Yeah, it's my problems. But i care about this game and still this happened for me once. Should we punish those situations?

If you mean forfeit (sorry if i don't understand, it may be just culture differencies) as a giving up with 3 low salary players. What if i have a tournament with a strong opponent? And i decide to let my three reserves to play in a league game, because i am saving my starters for a cup? Should i be punished? How do we determine is it intentional or not?