BuzzerBeater Forums

BB Global (English) > "Player Salaries Floor"

"Player Salaries Floor"

Set priority
Show messages by
From: brian

This Post:
00
181078.39 in reply to 181078.38
Date: 4/19/2011 11:53:07 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
576576
I can't speak for Damena, but I'm not celebrating it. The change will hurt me a little as I plan to keep tanking for another 2 seasons. Partaking in the plan or not, i think it's a competitive loophole that needs to be addressed. At this point, the best thing for you team is to lose, especially at the top level. I don't think that's healthy for the game.

"Well, no ones gonna top that." - http://tinyurl.com/noigttt
This Post:
11
181078.41 in reply to 181078.38
Date: 4/19/2011 11:58:42 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
8080
The problem is not that they do tanking but that they can do tanking.
If your team lose every game by 70 or whatever it would be logical that there are no more spectator and that also
the tv-contract schould be zero. Because no one wants to see that!
I hope such changes will be announced additional to the PSF.

From: docend24

This Post:
00
181078.42 in reply to 181078.39
Date: 4/19/2011 12:04:19 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
154154
I can't speak for Damena, but I'm not celebrating it. The change will hurt me a little as I plan to keep tanking for another 2 seasons. Partaking in the plan or not, i think it's a competitive loophole that needs to be addressed. At this point, the best thing for you team is to lose, especially at the top level. I don't think that's healthy for the game.

I don't either. But it shouldn't be change over one night without a warning. It is after all caused by discrepancy between incomes of different division levels. Because of that I think it was a fair game (most importantly because BBs confiremd that) and it is not for free, you are sacrifiyng a lot of fun in the process. For some it was a good strategic decision to plan to do it this season (it is always better to promote if you can, even unprepared), now hat decision is penalized a bit. But let's wait what the news will be and how things gonna work. If it is what the board thinks it is then sufggestion for less severe relegation punishment would be suitable.

From: Rycka
This Post:
00
181078.43 in reply to 181078.42
Date: 4/19/2011 12:45:36 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
272272
you are all just talking. answer this (it's my question btw):

how many teams were sooooo successful by tanking? i think it was not a high percent.


ok. i see it as an option. but how many times it's the right option? thing is it's still viable. in some cases. but those cases will be reduced.

Last edited by Rycka at 4/19/2011 12:47:17 PM

From: Rycka

This Post:
00
181078.45 in reply to 181078.44
Date: 4/19/2011 12:58:42 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
272272
lbbl, there was some cases of "tanking". one team promoted back after 6 seasons. another promoted right back away, ended up where it was before. third one, won the league... but that team got relegated two times, this time that team had really good players, and i bet 100% he didn't thought he need players like that, if he knew before, he would not "tanked".

From: Rycka

This Post:
00
181078.47 in reply to 181078.46
Date: 4/19/2011 1:09:58 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
272272
exactly, that's my point. don't be scared by this max 20% cap? it's still a viable option. it will just reduce the successful managers.

From: Rycka

This Post:
00
181078.49 in reply to 181078.48
Date: 4/19/2011 1:19:35 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
272272
its a question of maximize the profit using every tool you have available.


could not agree more. i've won my league having near 40% less salary's than my opponent in finals.

Last edited by Rycka at 4/19/2011 1:19:52 PM

Advertisement