BuzzerBeater Forums

Adjusting the attendance formula so that tankers can't make money, punishes tankers.

I've mentioned in the past that I like the idea of a revamped attendance formula. As others here have already pointed out though, coming up with a perfect formula for that is a lot easier said than done.

here ... from this very thread ...

I'd rather see some kind of punishment for teams that are on a losing streak, have a lot of savings and close to the salary floor.

How hard was that, really? And really, what are the priorities to fix? Micronations? Tanking? Training? Fan survey? Attendance formula? Where does salary floors fall on the list of priorities? It has to be waaay down the list.

I think that when we "users" (what an unfortunate term) see some action toward fixing what needs fixing, we get excited. I just think that playing the game gives us a different set of priorities from running the game. Who is to say which is right, but we'll still put our priorities out there, hopefully for consideration.

Last edited by Mike Franks at 2/24/2016 1:44:55 PM

Catching up on an active thread …

Here’s a step in the right direction:

I'd rather see some kind of punishment for teams that are on a losing streak, have a lot of savings and close to the salary floor. If you can squeeze those three variables into an equation, you have your cure for tanking. Teams that are salary efficient and can win games should not get punished.

BB-Ryan says:

The problem with this statement is that a competitive, salary efficient team from a large nation does not look like a competitive, salary efficient team from a smaller nation.

…which throws into question the one-size-fits-all measure that was employed. If the nations are so different, isn’t it better to acknowledge and address those differences than to paint them all with the same brush?

GM-hrudey says something similar:

Small nations are of course another issue and frankly I agree that if there are only two or one levels for a country, this is a much more significant problem. But that's an issue that you know and I know that has been an issue for years and will probably be an issue until the micronation experience is completely revamped, but of course I hesitate to say that word in the forums much because it tends to also lead to explosions in post volume. ;)

Another disagreement with painting everyone with the same brush. Should tanking have been the first priority, or evening out the BB experience from nation to nation? Did the wrong perceived problem get hit?

Frankly, I think the main thing is that the idea that a team should ever consider it wise to tank and collect as much money as possible so they can buy future success is detrimental to the game.

That's another argument to fix the economy, dampen the hyper-inflation that currently exists, eh? Doesn't say much about the salary floor.

Agree or disagree, this is always true:

p.s i really appreciate the lenghty reply. I may disagree with you, but it is always welcome when GMs and BBs alike, put this amount of (precious) time in their interaction with the community.

Thank you.

Catching up on an active thread …
BB-Ryan says:

The problem with this statement is that a competitive, salary efficient team from a large nation does not look like a competitive, salary efficient team from a smaller nation.

…which throws into question the one-size-fits-all measure that was employed. If the nations are so different, isn’t it better to acknowledge and address those differences than to paint them all with the same brush?

GM-hrudey says something similar:

Small nations are of course another issue and frankly I agree that if there are only two or one levels for a country, this is a much more significant problem. But that's an issue that you know and I know that has been an issue for years and will probably be an issue until the micronation experience is completely revamped, but of course I hesitate to say that word in the forums much because it tends to also lead to explosions in post volume. ;)

Another disagreement with painting everyone with the same brush. Should tanking have been the first priority, or evening out the BB experience from nation to nation? Did the wrong perceived problem get hit?

If this had been the only change regarding the economy in the past several seasons, of course, it would have been inadequate to address many of the issues currently ongoing with the economy. It might have helped slightly - money not added to those teams who have significant cash but choose to still operate at a minimum salary level is money that is unavailable to them to drive up the price of players when they wake up from hiberation.

But this, instead, was a targeted specifically for those teams who are just spending a minimum amount and not being competitive, or those who can be competitive because of the lack of competition in their league. It does have collateral damage for those who can compete in actual strong leagues with low salaries (I've been that in the past), and small nation users after 16 weeks.

There was also the recent change to free agency, which is supposed to try to somewhat aid in stabilizing prices for a specific segment of players, the vast majority of which are the ones that the vast majority of teams in this game would consider useful. It's still only a band-aid, as free agency is still a very insignificant part of the transfer market overall, but it's some progress.

There's also been a recent change to severely curtail the strategy of accumulating insane wealth and then just buying a team to win a title.

Although not directly an economical change, the 18 year old with allstar potential for a new team is definitely a nice bonus. Teams still need to add at minimum another trainee, and of course if they don't train it's small benefit - but having a homegrown player with the merchandise boost that leads to is nice.

The point is that you're correct, one-size-fits-all doesn't always fit. Expecting one component in a set of changes to itself be a fix for all issues is an equally untenable standard. Whether the salary floor is the *ideal* fix for the specific issue of tanking is of course a matter of opinion. It does also address in a small way the advantages inherent in being an established team in a small nation, where a minimum salary team can thrive, but it hurts those who are newly registered in some very small nations and those who are able to be competitive in very competitive leagues very cheaply. When you look at the whole, the tanking issue is a widespread concern affecting a lot of users, while draining the high-end micronation teams probably only affects other opposition in B3. The ones who are hurt, while unfortunately a non-zero number, are at least a minimal amount comparatively: newer teams in micronations and the best low level guys. For most people, the changes do no harm and improve the balance overall, which is the criteria I imagine the BB staff would look at.

When you look at the whole, the tanking issue is a widespread concern affecting a lot of users

While we're on the topic of salary floor increase as a partial remedy to tanking ... let me ask, who are these "lot of users" you're talking about? Who is actually hurt by tanking, other than the tankers themselves? Is tanking a problem in and of itself or merely a symptom of a more deep-rooted problem? (Move this question and start a new thread for this if you feel it's necessary).

While we're on the topic of salary floor increase as a partial remedy to tanking ... let me ask, who are these "lot of users" you're talking about?

Me. I make a lot of money while being competitive. I spend the salary floor (plus an extra $10k). Should I be targeted by the floor increase? Absolutely. Am I? No.

Who is actually hurt by tanking, other than the tankers themselves?

Everyone, including tankers. Its what drives inflation. The longer I can profit from not promoting, the more money I have to drive up prices when I'm ready to spend.

Is tanking a problem in and of itself or merely a symptom of a more deep-rooted problem?

Both.

Last edited by Perriwinkle Blue at 2/24/2016 3:00:20 PM

When you look at the whole, the tanking issue is a widespread concern affecting a lot of users

While we're on the topic of salary floor increase as a partial remedy to tanking ... let me ask, who are these "lot of users" you're talking about? Who is actually hurt by tanking, other than the tankers themselves? Is tanking a problem in and of itself or merely a symptom of a more deep-rooted problem? (Move this question and start a new thread for this if you feel it's necessary).

It's the game itself - when eschewing playing the game at all for seasons at a time to build up money becomes or is even perceived to have become a top strategy, the game is screwed.

I just did a search for the word "tanking" in this forum, and ordered by date. It allows me to pull up 100 posts only, and that goes back as far as late November. Did the same for "inflation" and it went back to May. Now, obviously, this thread had quite a few hits, but it surprised me - I was just expecting to see that tanking and inflation are both mentioned a lot as problems, in roughly equal amounts.

It's the game itself - when eschewing playing the game at all for seasons at a time to build up money becomes or is even perceived to have become a top strategy, the game is screwed. 

It is a top strategy. As long as the system allows it, it will continue.

What if to reward salary efficient teams, teams below the salary floor were able to make back the money they lost by being under the salary floor through their playoff performance. ie lets say my team lost 200k from being under the floor. If I make the playoffs I'll get 25% of that money back. If I make the semis I'll get 50% and if I win the championship I get 100% of that money back. Since this systems may reward teams in noncompetitive leagues or smaller nations, the percentages a team receives back could be adjusted depending on the division their in and their nations size.

When you look at the whole, the tanking issue is a widespread concern affecting a lot of users

While we're on the topic of salary floor increase as a partial remedy to tanking ... let me ask, who are these "lot of users" you're talking about? Who is actually hurt by tanking, other than the tankers themselves? Is tanking a problem in and of itself or merely a symptom of a more deep-rooted problem? (Move this question and start a new thread for this if you feel it's necessary).

It's the game itself - when eschewing playing the game at all for seasons at a time to build up money becomes or is even perceived to have become a top strategy, the game is screwed.

Hmm ... "the game itself." Sorry, but that might be just a wee bit too vague and metaphysical to further constructive conversation. We could similarly condemn eschewing competing in the game at all for seasons at a time to build up trainees to sell for money, and say that training is bad for the game itself. We could pretty much apply that to anything -- daytrading is bad for "the game itself." Vulgar team names. Anything. That's all just opinion.

I'm looking for something a little more concrete. Here's my thinking -- suppose you and BB-Ryan have a point. What if the raise in the salary floor didn't hurt as many managers as badly as many first believed, as you and BB-Ryan argue. Then who did it help by supposedly countering tanking? Who is hurt by tanking? Any users at all, or it just doesn't fit your mental image of what you want for BB?

When you look at the whole, the tanking issue is a widespread concern affecting a lot of users

While we're on the topic of salary floor increase as a partial remedy to tanking ... let me ask, who are these "lot of users" you're talking about? Who is actually hurt by tanking, other than the tankers themselves? Is tanking a problem in and of itself or merely a symptom of a more deep-rooted problem? (Move this question and start a new thread for this if you feel it's necessary).

It's the game itself - when eschewing playing the game at all for seasons at a time to build up money becomes or is even perceived to have become a top strategy, the game is screwed.

Hmm ... "the game itself." Sorry, but that might be just a wee bit too vague and metaphysical to further constructive conversation. We could similarly condemn eschewing competing in the game at all for seasons at a time to build up trainees to sell for money, and say that training is bad for the game itself. We could pretty much apply that to anything -- daytrading is bad for "the game itself." Vulgar team names. Anything. That's all just opinion.

I'm looking for something a little more concrete. Here's my thinking -- suppose you and BB-Ryan have a point. What if the raise in the salary floor didn't hurt as many managers as badly as many first believed, as you and BB-Ryan argue. Then who did it help by supposedly countering tanking? Who is hurt by tanking? Any users at all, or it just doesn't fit your mental image of what you want for BB?

Well, on the concept of "the good of the game" I figure that making the game better overall is and always should be the primary goal. But if that concept is too general, the teams being hurt by tanking are the teams who are playing the game as an actual management sim, who are attempting to progress through the game by competing to the best of their abilities as often as viable, rather than looking at the game as an exercise in collecting cash by either low salaries or high volume player trading (or, often both). It's exactly those teams that are negatively effected when a team promotes, collects cash for a year, and then promotes and spends those gains to buy a title and repeat the cycle again. Plus, of course, the people who have seen this and decided that they need to do the same to progress further are hurt because they stop experiencing this as a game and more of logging in to pass time while the long-term grind goes on.