BuzzerBeater Forums

Maybe we don't understand each other well.
Last season there was no tanking team using his money to build team for B3. VS is in my eyes first tanking team ever which used tanked money to build team which could fight for B3 title. Even with 1,6M overall salary ESV Laim had just 3 really great players, so it's not even starting 5. He also made several mistakes, but I can't specify them because I hope someone else can make similar mistakes. VS has already had great starting 5, with really good one backup for PG/SG, second one for PF/C and decent backup for SF. And I think he hasn't been finished with his purchases yet. I don't think injuries are real danger for him, too much injuries needed. There are two main possibilities how to stop him: 1) his mistakes (mainly tactical) 2) another tanking team using saved money for the same strategy as VS.
Also enthusiasm use in his league is no problem for him, he can play TIE every league games. Game shape is also not problem (you probably know why).
And I'm not talking about final 32. There are too many team which can go into final 32. Personally I think I can go into final 32 with 8-0 record, probably my roster will be one of strongest (let's say one of top 10), but I don't expect my team to be danger for VS even if I buy another bigman that would make my roster comparable with my last season roster (but probably I don't plan to buy any bigman for this purpose).

The game is still very young, so almost all tanking teams are still in period of tanking, I think B3 concept have worked quite well so far (except for season 14 final), but I'm worried about the future as tanking teams starts using his savings and we will see if I'm right with opinion that now begins area of tanking B3 winners (if there are no changes in the game) or kamikaze B3 winners (that end after B3 win or starts tanking period).

Last edited by rwystyrk at 5/13/2011 7:28:10 PM

Why not a salary cap like the NBA?

The salary cap suggestion was brought up numerous times in the past but it didn't really take off.

So instead of capping salary, why not we focus on the club economy instead? Teams cannot go over a certain amount on their weekly balance, like -300k excluding transfers or else the club's account manager will step in. This should have the dual effect of helping new teams destroying themselves economically by buying cheap, huge monster players without knowing the repercussions.

In what moment it would be checked?

Weekly, during the weekly economic update. It's when your account manager tells you to do something about it or he'll start listing your top earner to balance the books. This will cover scenarios where teams load up near the max, then season updates happen and their trainees push them over.

It will also need to be checked during bids on the transfer list if the new player's salary will push the team too much in the red. If it does, the bid cannot be made.

This is just off the top of my head, I'm sure there might be more scenarios to cover.

I have one problem with this idea. Revenue could be very different in different weeks due to difference of attendance income and merchandise. So one week you can be ok whilst the other not.

It's just a rough idea, plenty of edges to sand off.

This fluctuation is expected and I was also thinking along the same lines on how to get around economic cash fluctuation. A two tier cap instead of one. The first softer cap (Maybe from -100 to -300k) will render you unable to purchase newer players. The second harder cap (maybe at -600k) is when your BB Accounts Manager steps in. The difference between the first and second cap should be sufficient to cater for any fluctuations in economy.

Exceptions. There will be one week during the normal season where some teams might not have a home game. In this event, the previous week's attendance revenue (Accountants like to go by hard, relevant data) will be used to determine if the club is operating too much in the red.

I have one issue on this idea. For B3 purpose it could mean higher salary cap for team from big countries due to TV contract, otherwise in big countries teams can have more trouble with attendance income. So I prefer more salary cap than your idea. Salary cap could be set different for different league levels but the same all around the world. Your idea finally is kind of floating salary cap, but I think too complicated to understand for many users and also much complicated to implement.
I think any idea how the solve the problem should be as simple as possible.

If the BBs went for the salary cap, I'd be happy.
The B3, as things go now, might be redundant in the future. We should all just compare bank accounts and give it to the person who wants to spend the most.

I think salary cap is the answer (and I think BB will implement it sooner or later) but it should be done without luxury taxes or fines if you go over salary cap. You can have roster with salaries over 2M, you can go minus 1M every week but system should forbid to place line up if sum of players' salaries is let's over 1,4 M, that way rich teams can splash their money as much as they want but they have to choose (or to buy if necessary) certain players from their roster to fit in salary cap for certain game. This solution would also let people to train and keep high potential salary monsters if people like to do that (but maybe they not always can play them).