BuzzerBeater Forums

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.

Moving the transfer deadline kind of kills the market. That's the problem. I think BB's try to avoid killing the market completely. I agree GS to 1 might be a bit too harsh. But dropping GS by 2 levels per transfer would be ok change.

And what's wrong with modifying the code to arena revenue? This seems to be the most realistic way...

Add that to moving back the transfer deadline (maybe not 8 weeks, but 6 or even 4), and we're set.

One of the problems we don't think about as managers on the other side of the fence, is that one of the BB management team's goals is to have as much activity as possible. Activity on the TL is healthy for that. Of course you can say that teams will get bored and quit but how many have actually done that? BB is still growing, after all.

There needs to be some middle ground between making it more realistic, removing annoying parts of the game, and consolidating the activity side for the BB owners.

Moving the transfer deadline kind of kills the market. That's the problem. I think BB's try to avoid killing the market completely. I agree GS to 1 might be a bit too harsh. But dropping GS by 2 levels per transfer would be ok change.

Yep a solution is good or not according to the situation we are in.
Right now, market is too low and BB want not big teams keep being first ones easily (thanks for the fun)


Moving the transfer deadline will help keeping the market too low. Still, I agree with the idea, but by moving it just from 2 weeks. And why not completing this by adding like in soccer and Football Manager limited number of substitutions during the season for one competition (championship, cup and B3) .


Giving high awards according to the place will help big teams to stay on the first place like it was until a fews seasons and will add some cash, what will make the market stay low.
What's more those who are tanking, even while raising salary floor, will have the possibility the very next season to aim at the top places easily, and so they will make even more money with these big awards, (making it difficult for good managers that are improving to promote like at the moment where it not so visible because hundreds of players left the game). And after that, they will have a season with the bonus promotion.

On the contrary, the solution "hitting where it hurts with the merchandising, TV contracts and arena income" would deprive those players from getting money. Those who lose by trying with a good team won't. It "suffices" to have not a proportional formula between big wage and good income, but just to make a penalty for those close to the new minimal wage in addition with some alert for those who loose highly at home (the +40 is good to begin with but if the new minimal wage improves, it will have anyway to be studied since tankers will play with the limits).

If you have only one of those, there will be problems :
1°) The penalty for those close to the minimal wage will hurt those who have a team with low wage but many good trained people that would increase a lot the wage of the team if their salary were calculated weekly. SO if too harsh, it will reduce severely the possibility to have long terme plans based on very good trainees.
2°) The alert for those who loose highly : Like said, tankers will play with the limit.




Last edited by Dunker Joe at 5/29/2012 11:05:46 AM

I realize that you were just giving a rough example, but you forgot to factor in the decreased attendance and merchandising that comes from tanking. I don't really know how much would be lost, and it probably wouldn't be equivalent to 1.7 million dollars, but that is also a factor. I still think that you would make more than you lost however, which isn't right.

I am generally opposed to restrictions against tanking in terms of making moves for the sake of making salary room. However, in the interest of 'fair play", I think each team should field at least 7 players for each game. So tanking by not carrying enough players to field a team in the event of injury or DQ does go against that aspect of "fair play". I realize some teams may still be so vastly superior that it isn't intent to lose, but rather intent to not compete.

Fielding 7 players not the answer
teams would just have to couple of cheapies to flesh out roster

The think about GS drops is that they will affect market dynamic making it more slow. Not a very desirable second effect. And also becomes painfully unfair for teams who got an injured player or just want to modify his roster after observing current league/cup competiton for a while.

Plus, it won't stop tanking. Tanking the whole season and getting an excellent draft so you can rebuild on a lower division still seems dominant compared to the decision of trying to compete in a hard league.

Salary floor just hits the tanking teams. It also provides a healthy pressure on newly promoted teams to build minimun roster if they have not do it so.

I'm back, here are my top suggestions I like with this thread, but me and Matt keep on getting denied, until now;
1. Eliminate #2 tanking with moving the deadline 2 weeks, even 2 weeks extra salary would hurt the buyer.
2. The Idea of GS. 2 would be a great start there
3. Rewarding $$$, but enough $$$ to make the teams enticed to win more and stop #1 tanking. Also trying to compete.
4. The Idea of contract. I just started a new manager game and it has contracts involve. And if you don't do what the contract says, you'd be fined. Also a nice suggestion.


Good suggestions guys, hope more come along and the BB GODS will notice.

Some of my thoughts:

bad:
-moving trade deadline = killing market
-rewarding money = might affect other areas of the game, top division teams with even more advantage
-any kind of fines = the problem is solveable, no need for that
-higher salary floor = mixed feelings about it, perhaps yes, but what about teams that want to rebuild? what if team went bankrupt and has no money improve? how possibly can this team become competitive again, if it's not gonna generate profit?

good:
-salary cap = tanking would be useless as you can't spend all that money on monster salaries, +1 for strategy as money wouldn't have the final word
-contracts = sign player for number of seasons, more seasons = lower salary, you can sell it at any time but you have to pay him the money he's supposed to earn
-game shape for teams aka team chemistry = affected by trades and league and cup results, has impact on all players
-revisited attandance = fans should draw their opinion based on at least last 10 games (now its on last game and it's a joke), so if you are tanking for a half season, you need to start to compete for another half to get back to normal state