BuzzerBeater Forums

This can be mitigated somewhat by giving everyone warning that such a feature will be implemented (and when it will begin) i.e. announce it two seasons before it actually takes effect.

If there's a maximum amount of time that it takes to reach the top level of 'loyalty' (e.g. three seasons), it doesn't significantly favour more established teams, as teams with the same roster for seven seasons will get the same loyalty bonus as teams that have been together for three seasons (or whatever the maximum is).

This is exactly what I was thinking. It might even work if it's half a season that it takes for a team to "gel", also adding in a random factor for each player.

Newer teams would be barely affected because they start in the lowest league and are competing against similar, newer teams. After a season or four, depending on the strength of the league, they move up and, if they've managed well, their players will have the "gel" factor already sorted.

Before we get too far into suggestions that involve fines or penalties, we should really make sure we understand exactly what the problem is and why it's happening, or why it has become a strategy.

As I see it, the problem is tanking i.e. losing games on purpose. To come up with a suitable solution, we must also understand why teams are tanking.

Possible reasons...

1. Because it's possible to make more money, compared to paying for a roster that allows you to be competitive.

2. Because the team has no hope of being competitive in that division anyway.

3. Because the team wants the first draft pick.

4. Because there's a bot in the 8th spot (or another tanker), allowing them to get away with tanking to save money for a relegation series.

I'm sure there's a few others, but these are the ones that are on the top of my head at the moment.

I think it's also important to highlight that there's two different forms of tanking...

1. Tanking to save money and get relegated at the end of the season.

2. Tanking with the aim of finishing 7th and saving up enough money to buy in mercenaries for a relegation series.

I don't really have much of a problem with #1, as the team demotes at the end of the season, which certainly isn't a reward. I have a big problem with #2 though, as the team (a) gets the benefit of saving a bunch of money; (b) gets to remain in the same division; (c) gets rewarded with a fairly high draft pick; and (d) often causes a team that has been trying to be competitive to demote, because they can't buy in players at the end of the season.

Possible solutions suggested so far...

1. Moving the transfer deadline. This would completely remove all forms of #2 tanking (i.e. tanking to finish 7th), as they would no longer be able to buy in players to help them win a relegation series.

2. Significantly increase the salary floor. This removes some of the financial incentive to tank.

3. Significantly decrease attendances for tanking teams. Again, this reduces the financial incentive to tank, however would require changes to the fan survey code, which is probably more difficult than the first two suggestions.

4. Various fines or penalties for teams that lose by 30+ points, etc. I think we need to be careful here, as it's possible for non-tanking teams to lose a game by 30+ every now and then.

Another option that hasn't been suggested before (to counter type #2 tanking) is to introduce a minimum contract period for players purchased from the transfer list. e.g. a player will have an initial contract of 8 weeks, forcing you to pay a minimum of 8 weeks wages for all players purchased. This doesn't stop teams from buying up a few days before the playoffs, however (although they may have to think twice about it, if they can't sustain the wages for 8 weeks).

Personally, I think suggestion number 1 works the best, as it is the easiest one to implement and it will put an end to type #2 tanking immediately. This could also be looked at together with increasing the salary floor, although don't think a salary floor increase will solve the problem by itself.

I think there is a need to raise the salary floor. But we also have to think about, how this affects the small countrys. As some of their teams might promote with 5k arena, unable to stay on the + side with salary floor too high.
I still think the best way to adress the 7-th spot tanking is to lower game shape to 1 on every transfer. Even 3 300k players with 1 GS can't get you the win against opposite 6-th with home court advantage. If you want better GS you have to keep them on your team and fix their GS, not cheap!
For the fines and penaltys, salary floor should be already the "income correction" enough. I felt attendance drop the more I lost. Every price change time I had to lower the prices. In the end I was making about the same (from arena) I made while having a winning record one div lower.

I still think the best way to adress the 7-th spot tanking is to lower game shape to 1 on every transfer. Even 3 300k players with 1 GS can't get you the win against opposite 6-th with home court advantage. If you want better GS you have to keep them on your team and fix their GS, not cheap!

Why not just change the transfer deadline then?

This penalises all transfers, not just the ones made prior to the relegation series...

This penalises all transfers, not just the ones made prior to the relegation series...

That's the point, penalizing renting a player and daytrading. How hard is it to flip a player with 1 GS?

[2. Because the team has no hope of being competitive in that division anyway.

BB makes incentives for newly promoted teams to be competitive with promotion bonuses and increased attendance, but tanking teams that are newly promoted don't even try to be competitive and instead use this BB help to get even more money from tanking, so they loose, but their attendance don't drop dramatically, they get relegated and after one season they usually get promoted again and they get another bonus.

3. Significantly decrease attendances for tanking teams. Again, this reduces the financial incentive to tank, however would require changes to the fan survey code, which is probably more difficult than the first two suggestions.

There is one problem with this, BB makes incentive for new teams by increasing their attendance what if team actually can't compete and looses games?

I believe in addition of increasing salary floor, BB should increase incentives to win and not to loose - introduce bonuses for won championships and second, third places and so on, I believe someone already wrote about this in this thread. BB will say that this will make winning teams more stronger, but I think this is way is better than to see how teams are competing for the last place.

Last edited by Ghost Master at 5/29/2012 9:45:42 AM

And it also penalises legitimate transfers during the season.

Anyway, I'm not sure why simply moving the transfer deadline wouldn't be a simpler solution?

3. Significantly decrease attendances for tanking teams. Again, this reduces the financial incentive to tank, however would require changes to the fan survey code, which is probably more difficult than the first two suggestions.

There is one problem with this, BB makes incentive for new teams by increasing their attendance what if team actually can't compete and looses games? BB should increase salary floors and increase incentives to win and not to loose - introduce bonuses for won championships and second, third places and so on, I believe someone already wrote about this in this thread. BB will say that this will make winning teams more stronger, but I think this is way is better than to see how teams are competing for the last place.

I'm not in favour of that solution, I just listed it as it had been mentioned previously.

I'm not against prize money for 2nd, 3rd 4th, etc, however it would need to be significant prize money to encourage teams not to tank. If you can save $2.5m by tanking and finishing 7th, $100k prize money for finishing 4th isn't going to be much of an incentive.

I think there is a need to raise the salary floor. But we also have to think about, how this affects the small countrys. As some of their teams might promote with 5k arena, unable to stay on the + side with salary floor too high.

Well, it is not logical that they may promote without spending money on the arena so it will oblige them to do so, what is a good thing.
Raising Salary Floor will also permit to diminish the structural tanking that may existe in small countries.

I still think the best way to adress the 7-th spot tanking is to lower game shape to 1 on every transfer. Even 3 300k players with 1 GS can't get you the win against opposite 6-th with home court advantage. If you want better GS you have to keep them on your team and fix their GS, not cheap!

Lowering, why not, but doing do up to 1 will be also a penalty for those who just want a back-up, to find a substitute for a player needing health care or to recruit a new trainee and would participate in kepping the market to be too low. Dividing the GS per 2 would be enough, I think.

@Matt1986

I don't really have much of a problem with #1, as the team demotes at the end of the season, which certainly isn't a reward. I have a big problem with #2 though, as the team (a) gets the benefit of saving a bunch of money; (b) gets to remain in the same division; (c) gets rewarded with a fairly high draft pick; and (d) often causes a team that has been trying to be competitive to demote, because they can't buy in players at the end of the season.

About the fact that tanking is for you first and foremost the problem of the 7th one tanking until he can buy strongly for play downs, yes it is the most annoying part. But the whole tanking has to be dealt with by the same energy.
I think about those who are tanking to go down by keeping tons of money so that they can promote again easily, those who constantly get the draftees (some lowest division manager do that to have the pleasure to train, others do that with the former objective), those who realize they won't make it and decide to let down during the season, what makes the competition for promotion and relegation unfair between other players.
For those cases, it is not only those who are trying to stay in their division who are responsible.



Last edited by Dunker Joe at 5/29/2012 9:50:45 AM

I'm not against prize money for 2nd, 3rd 4th, etc, however it would need to be significant prize money to encourage teams not to tank. If you can save $2.5m by tanking and finishing 7th, $100k prize money for finishing 4th isn't going to be much of an incentive.

I believe tanking teams in first division can earn more than 5M in one season with good draft pick maybe even 7M, so, yes, prize money should be very significant.

Anyway I see that if BB actually decide to do something with tanking it would be a real challenge to determine what is tanking team and what is team that can't actually afford to have high salaries and can't compete in division.

Last edited by Ghost Master at 5/29/2012 10:14:59 AM

You make some good points.

I'd say increasing the salary floor would decrease the incentive for #1 tanking (tanking and relegating), while moving the transfer deadline would completely remove #2 tanking (finishing 7th). A combination of both of these suggestions might be a good start.