BuzzerBeater Forums

We don't reset it in the offseason because then it would make no sense to even detect it for the last third of the season, it would have no effect.

So if a team has tanked the last third of the previous season and going into the new season, has spent 20mil in buying players, builds the highest salaries team in its league and wins every game in the beginning of the season, it will still be boycotted by the fans, for the first third of the season...
Makes no sense whatsoever.

Furthermore, for tanking teams that do relegate, there was already an attendance penalty because of demotion, so the fan boycott is reduntant in that case also, for the first third of the new season.

Last edited by maddoghellas at 3/20/2017 10:15:59 AM

We are in agreement that wins should reduce the percentage more than losses. Once we decide on the exact implementation, we'll code it in.
.

And give money compensation to teams that won games while suffering boycott before this new version of code ?

Yes the team will be boycotted, as he deserves to be boycotted because of the tanking. Spending the money after you were tanking shouldn't really get you a free pass to do it, you must live with the consequences.

There is no redundancy because of the relegation, as normal teams that don't tank also suffer the same penalty.

No, that is not retroactive. This is why we will most probably introduce it at the allstar break or after the first third of the season is complete.

Spending the money after you were tanking shouldn't really get you a free pass to do it, you must live with the consequences.

Βut the same consequences will apply to the team, even if it had spent 20mil and maintained the highest salary payroll the season before, but just lost all its third part of the season matches due to GS/injuries/bad managing/better opponents/inability to login etc.
Next season it will be boycotted for tanking(!!!), regardless of whether it's been demoted or not!!!!
And it deserves to be boycotted...for tanking(!!!)????

If you spend 20 mil first and then still loose all your games then you're doing something wrong. Also since the boycot penalty depends on money you have in your bank account I assume this hypothetical person has another 5 to 20 mil in the bank and therefore feels the boycot so heavily.

Instead of this very unlikely hypothetical I prefer to see the measure for who it is meant to target which is the people that tank and who still have a very full bank account (low savings means low penalty).

Now the suggestion on reducing the penalty as soon as the team start winning (maybe even being completely gone after a third win?) is a good suggestion! This way the team has still felt some effect of the tanking but is rewarded for starting to win.

As for the promotion demotion change, I'm looking forward to some extra excitement in our top division and higher turnover between the divisions.

As for the nickname change, not very interesting to me but if it's a small and quick implementation it's worth it since I think some people will enjoy it. I'm assuming this didn't take weeks to work on

Salaries, based on the other thread the differentiation between players with very good or bad secondary skills seemed a bit smaller than expected.

Better starting player for new teams, Yes! Give those teams as much as an advantage to start with as possible since it takes a long time to catch up (maybe too long)

Nations merger, this has been the most often repeated request by some managers on this forum. Great to see it being tried out in an experiment. The lower amount of good draft picks per nationality is not ideal but I for one see this as the BBs trying to improve on micro nations and support that attempt.

If you spend 20 mil first and then still loose all your games then you're doing something wrong.

Not necessarily. Maybe yes, maybe no.
But what you're certainly not doing is...TANKING.
And guess what you're getting penalized for...
Yep!

Can you link me to a few players that spend 20 mil on players and then lost all games after that (and didn't lose on purpose)?

Βut the same consequences will apply to the team, even if it had spent 20mil and maintained the highest salary payroll the season before, but just lost all its third part of the season matches due to GS/injuries/bad managing/better opponents/inability to login etc.

Wait, if the money is already spent, then the penalty is low, right? The penalty is calculated only at the end of the final third.

Ok, now that I gave up having any compensation for the winning flag that might occur in the future, i'll try to give you some feedback about how this works in production.

After my first home game, the boycott only lowered 2%. (From 20% to 18%) while rules stated that it was going to decrease 3%.
I think there is an issue here.


I won 2 on 2 at the moment, and fans survey stated that they are less happy from this season (0,5 ball) than the previous one - 1 ball (??)
I think there is miscalculation here, is boycott affecting fan survey?
I have spent 3 millions before the survey, and they are still complaining about the fact I do not do anything to improve the team (0,5 ball)
And in the same time, as I did some movements, I saw my "I know the stars" decrease a lot.

Hope this help, and that you can give me answers for the 2 questions.

You're right, the boycott reduction was miscalculated this season (my mistake, I missed one place where it should have been updated), I will fix that right away.

The fan survey is definitely affected by the boycott and some of the ratings are set to lowest possible values, even though they do not affect attendance that way. Hope this is clear, if not, I'll explain more in detail.

EDIT: I fixed the boycott values and even added an extra reduction point for teams that had two home matches already. That should counter the missing point in the second match attendance calculations.

Last edited by BB-Marin at 3/26/2017 5:10:41 PM