BuzzerBeater Forums

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?

Can't we all conclude that pretty much every "solution" has its own drawbacks?

I ask: What are the drawbacks for modifying the Fan Survey code, apart from giving the BBs something to think about?

When I say modifying the code, I mean if you forfeit (maybe more than once to eliminate accidents), it dramatically reduces your attendance. If your team is constantly losing by very large amounts (to be decided), attendance drops and merchandise would practically disappear, perhaps TV contact as well.

Is there a major problem to this apart from what I mentioned earlier about giving BBs some work?

It always is. That's what make this game great :)

You should agree, that conditional programing is a bad idea. You have so much scenarios... And you will surely skip one. Therefore creating one or more unhappy user. Programing is object orientated. Not conditional.

By forfeit I did mean technical loss. I would say that playing your three worst players should also be punished. It would not be as severe though because at least the fans got to see a game. I would say that the punishment for this type of loss would be decreases attendance for later games. I am hypocritical in this as I just recently "tanked" my cup game for a league game, because I was facing an opponent 2 divisions higher than me. I am interested to hear people's thoughts on that as well. Should my intentional loss to preserve gameshape be considered tanking and punished. I myself would say no because you are still trying to be competitive and you're not really being a detriment to anyone's else's experience (except maybe the team you play the next week), but I would like to hear other's thoughts.

You should agree, that conditional programing is a bad idea. You have so much scenarios... And you will surely skip one. Therefore creating one or more unhappy user. Programing is object orientated. Not conditional.

The object is to make the game more realistic and more fair.

I would say that playing your three worst players should also be punished. It would not be as severe though because at least the fans got to see a game. I would say that the punishment for this type of loss would be decreases attendance for later games.

So think. If i know that there will be punishment because i am playing my three worst players, what should i do? I get the cup money for the win. I get league money for attendance. Logical answer is - forget the cup. It will ruin my next home game.

No, you totally missed what I was saying. Prices need to be *higher* relative to salaries.

You seem to miss the point, that in this game, salary is part of the transfer fee. The game is about filling up teams rosters to fill that "salary cap". I see you are a relativly new user. I remember why FA's were introduced. Everyone was well below their caps and money was pileing up. Players sold for 10-15mil, the prices were still going up as everyone had a lot of money to spend and nothing to buy. 11k salary players were going for 1,8mil.
So basically your first and second post are negated, as we need something to remove that excess income from the game. Arena does that aswell to some point, but it has a max. Staff does it a bit, but the main that has filled most teams "salary cap" is FA's. If we want to remove the FA's completely, we need to compensate it somehow to avoid pileing up the money again. Either max transfer gain at 50% or something.
If 25k players would cost 2,5mil by default on TL. Tanking team might get that after half a season of tanking, how long do you think it would take for a team with income of 100k a week. 2 seasons? Get real...

That means that the team that just bought all its players after tanking for 3 years is at no disadvantage vs. the team that's been carefully nurturing its roster.

Team tanking for 3 years, as going for the 8th spot and relegation (and I mean in a big country). Let's leave those relegation game buyers aside, as they usually blow a big portion of the money they save on those players just before the playoffs and if they lose they are double effed. So if a team tanks for 3 seasons, he has dropped to divIV. It takes him 3 more seasons to get back to divI + many of them fail at their attempt to get back up. Even dropping one level is challenge enough. You need to get a competitive team right at the start of the season and you usually end up paying a lot more per skill as you tend to settle in the need of gathering a team quickly compared to slowly building a team.
I think tanking to some degree is needed, some teams are so badly overspending in order to win a championship, that eventually they need to get out of that minus.

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).

Yeah. But in the "flash", or what I've been calling the binge, they stop someone else from winning. That's the problem, not that the "unjust" are succeeding, but that they are spoiling it for everyone else. When someone runs a 250K salary (not even counting staff) in a league where the income is closer to 200K, that's not fun for everyone else in the league. Even if that person flames out after they promote. And if there's always someone who is running a deficit, it's very hard for anyone else not running a deficit to win (not impossible, depending on the size of the deficit.) At which point the user who wants to promote thinks, logically, "in order to promote, I need to run my team for income rather than result for a while (tank) and then run it for at a loss for a year." And the way to beat that person *that year* is to have tanked harder and binged more. And the cycle continues, and gets worse -- if there weren't any tanker/bingers, no one would have to tank/binge to win, for sure. When there's usually a binger in the league, it's (almost) the only way to win.