BuzzerBeater Forums

I think it's important that we reduce the amount of negativity and be somewhat thankful that the BBs listened. They didn't have to and, I imagine, BB would still continue to grow. I think they want to satisfy their existing user base, yet not do something that will upset the apple cart.

It is a really good start to raise the salary floor, and there are some other really good ideas in here and other places that, if the salary floor doesn't work, I'm sure the BBs will take notice. Let's hope so. :)

Yes, it is very good that the BBs are listening to the crowd.
But it is not something that was not tried here. The salary-floor existed before this raising, and I think it already been raised before today. Did it affected the tanking in any possitive way? No.

Basically what raising the salary floor does is to make all users of a specific league pay more for players and reduce income. Income that is used for developing the team.
So, those who could not compete and needed this money in order of growing can even do it less.
It is generally suffocating them.

The alternative way for causing teams to put the same money is to make it logical for them to waste the same money and to grow during that.
This is done by the salary-cap.
A salary-cap lowers the ability of the top teams on that league, and makes the game more competitive.
When the game is more competitive, they will not need to tank due to two reasons:
1) They CAN compete! So they don't have reasoon to tank.
They cannot take this money to the bank, they are tanking today in order of being able of competing the next day.

2) As the expenses of the league had been lowered down by the salary-floor, the net profit of the tanker team over the competing teams had been narrowed.
Which means that it is less profitable for them to tank.

Maybe I'll start a trend..

sadly it didn't happen - Negativity re appeared really quickly.

Yes, it is very good that the BBs are listening to the crowd.
But it is not something that was not tried here. The salary-floor existed before this raising, and I think it already been raised before today. Did it affected the tanking in any possitive way? No.

You are mistaken - Salary floor wasn't raised before today. Latest change is the first time BB raised salary floor dramatically in order to fight "tanking".

Your other saying are to old and I won't waste my time on them. I just say that salary floor shouldn't be related to salary cap. If you think salary cap is the right answer to some problem, suggest it in the relevant thread (Suggest it)

(First part of the post is related to you, second one to Pini)

Last edited by Ehud at 8/16/2012 2:49:37 AM

so looks like the walkover issue is the main thing here now. here's what i think about it:

The main concerns in walkover are:

1. The point differential (25-0) is atrocious, to say the least.
2. If you are a home team, having a walkover is a big drop on attendance, since your fans know that the team is on a losing streak.
3. Again, i should say once more, i don't really understand the fans' logic where they will buy to watch their teams games, even though they know that they will give walkover.
4. Also, why would teams giving walkovers get a merchandise income? i mean, they don't have players, what jerseys would they sell? do they sell jerseys of their past players who they sold already?
5. Lastly, why would they receive a weekly TV contract revenue if they don't play themselves. i mean, if you gave a walkover in a televised game, what would people watch? commercials?

So my own solutions to these are:

1. At least increase the point differential, i'll say 50 points, or maybe some other reasonable measures.
2. There must be some kind of an incentive for having a home team play against those teams who gives walkover. i'm thinking of a penalty that they would pay to the home team.
3. The 3rd issue is rather hard to think of a solution to. if realistic enough, a team that gives a walkover should not have an arena income that week, since its logical that no fans will watch their game.
4. The 4th issue, i guess i'm implying that they would not have a merchandise income? lol. i say, they should be given lower.
5. In hear, i'm thinking that since this is a contract, maybe there should be a stipulation that if they give a walkover during a home game, there should be some kind of breach of contract, and so they will pay damages. maybe they will receive half of their TV contract for that week.

well, i think with those solutions, walkovers are going to be very unprofitable for the team, i think they should sustain a loss, or maybe a little profit. these are just on my own opinion so, if anyone agrees or disagrees on some, it wouldn't hurt to say it.

If intentional walkovers are that big of a problem, don't allow teams to field less than five (three) players. If a team doesn't field any players, have lucky fans fill the rotation or autoselect players from the roster.

I'll stay positive, I don't mind.

I like the removal of TV contract idea. That seems like a good start. Ultimately, the fan survey should reflect walkovers, but I do understand that it's not necessarily so easy for BBs to change that without extended testing. Maybe it is; I don't know.

This is probably heading into another topic, though.... Another thread?

As I see things, the main point of this change is kind of missed. The aim was not to make tanking disappear, but to convert it from the optimal strategy (in terms of revenue per effort) into one of the possible strategies, not necessarily the best one in all cases. Tanking itself is not a problem. The problem is how much you tank, and can't you find a way to get similar economical boost without tanking?

Before this change I the answer was a big NO. Even the most successful teams could not compete with the economic gain of tankers. After the change I truly doubt it. I think that for some teams tanking will still be the best way to progress, but for the others it can be training youth, buying/training/selling, buying cheap old players with experience and quality, winning away/TV/rival games or just winning everything and getting the revenue for it.

Once tanking becomes from the most preferable to just one of possible strategies, there will no longer remain complaints on it :

Once tanking becomes from the most preferable to just one of possible strategies, there will no longer remain complaints on it :

Welcome to the Internet! As you'll learn, no matter how logical your statement is, that's just now how things work around here. ;)

I completely agree that teams should have to field a team of at least three guys and that in the case of a three man team 2 lucky fans should be used and in the case of 0 players suited up, 5 lucky fans.

for me the update seems as bbs just shoted 2 rabbits in one shot. Since they made nearly as twice as hard to tank at higher level and only minor changes at league 3. This makes weaker teams in lower leagues able to earn cash nearly as fast as league 1 tankers does. So they can compete in shorter time.