BuzzerBeater Forums

Also the fact that there are lot more div2 and div3 teams then div1 teams.
Only teams in div1 can sustain players of 200k+ salary. Less demand means they cost less.
Whereas the 50-100k players are more dear to buy cos every division needs them, either for as starters or for backups.

There is the occasional exception, isn't Duffman now toiling away in division III? Even worse look at this player who was playing in division IV!

Siim Kriisk (11507655)
Point Guard
Owner: rtfg
Weekly salary: $ 288 765
Age: 30
Height: 5'10" / 178 cm
Potential: hall of famer

Last edited by yodabig at 12/30/2012 11:12:12 AM

There is the occasional exception, isn't Duffman now toiling away in division III? Even worse look at this player who was playing in division IV!

Siim Kriisk (11507655)
Point Guard
Owner: rtfg
Weekly salary: $ 288 765
Age: 30
Height: 5'10" / 178 cm
Potential: hall of famer

That's just nonsense... No div4 team should be able to buy a player with skills like that.

There is the occasional exception, isn't Duffman now toiling away in division III? Even worse look at this player who was playing in division IV!

Siim Kriisk (11507655)
Point Guard
Owner: rtfg
Weekly salary: $ 288 765
Age: 30
Height: 5'10" / 178 cm
Potential: hall of famer

That's just nonsense... No div4 team should be able to buy a player with skills like that.

I'm sure they can buy them, it's maintaining them that's the problem. It tends to be noobs who either don't take notice of the salary or don't realise how much it kills them and how quickly. They then, of course, sell them for a pittance to get rid of them or fire them.

However, there are also players out there (Iwen comes to mind) who could easily afford to run $300k guys in a say Div V because they're cashed up.

Last edited by Mr J at 1/1/2013 12:23:58 AM

Yeah, I'm just saying that we shouldn't be able to afford them. The game is more and more promoting "saving up".

Yeah, I'm just saying that we shouldn't be able to afford them. The game is more and more promoting "saving up".

Yeah, true.

On a different note (but still financial) BB posted this earlier last year:




Posted by: BB-Marin 8/15/2012 11:34:30 PM
Offseason update


As we have mentioned in our last season news post, we are a bit worried about the number of users that have chosen to follow the strategy called “tanking”. Even though the strategy is not very successful, some teams still pursue it and it's frustrating for their fellow league members to see less competing teams. Therefore, we have decided to take some measures. “Tanking” should still be an option and we don't want to eliminate it completely, but from now on, the profit, we predict, won’t be so high. Starting in Season 21, the salary floor will change for the first three divisions. First division salary floor will be 180% of the tv contract, second division will increase to 140% and third division to 100%. The other divisions will remain the same.

Having been tanking for all of this season I agree that they really have affected the 'profit'. I've tanked before but it is definately harder now. The big difference I've noticed is the sudden arena attendance drops. They were never this severe before. This is, I believe, where they're destroying tankers.

Many have discussed tanking before so I won't start a new debate but I just want to say this: Tanking is a necessary part of this game in order to survive at the higher levels. As for their above statement, 'it's frustrating for their fellow league members to see less competing teams'...what a lot of rubbish. Teams know how hard it is to fill their arenas, maintain competitive player lists, train their next superstars while trying to win their respective championships. Tanking is an element of the game that should have been left alone in my opinion.




Last edited by Mr J at 1/1/2013 10:18:48 PM

Many have discussed tanking before so I won't start a new debate but I just want to say this: Tanking is a necessary part of this game in order to survive at the higher levels.

If this is true, then the game is flawed. It should be possible to survive in the higher leagues without tanking, so if it's not, there's a major problem with the game design.


Last edited by Matt1986 at 1/2/2013 2:57:31 AM

I'm not talking about 'surviving', Matt, but winning the championship. Or at least having the team that can do it.

Last season in my first stint in Div II I had, by the end of the season, a solid lineup. It was good enough to beat the Titans fairly. Then, in the SF, my best shooter played a bad game and I got the tactics wrong. I lost and the Titans went through to GF where they lost in a 3 series battle with Tigers.

My point is this: I could have said, "Shit, stuffed up the tactics, shooter had an offnight...next season will be different; I'll be right there next season.' The trouble is, that wouldn't have been the case. My lineup was good but it wasn't good enough to win the GF if it got there. So, how do I improve it?

OPTION 1. Buy and sell (hurts merch) to make a small weekly profit and hope that in four season's time I can use that accumalated wealth to add a final great player. that's fine but in the meantime, my players a re three seasons older, my trainees have become more expensive and I probably couldn't afford the salary of the player I am just about to add.

OPTION 2. Don't train rookies, keep older good players (sorry Naker) but still not make any profits. Of course, when I go to sell them I can't get shit for them as they are now 34, 35 and 36.

OPTION 3. Tank. Reduce player salaries to the floor, accumalate as much money as possible, build arena, train rookies, don't get relegated and then, if all goes well, use savings to create a better version of the team previously had.


Tell me why option 3 shouldn't exist?

I might just add this:

How many times do you see teams rent players at the finals to get that promotion, or at least try (sorry Hax.). If you go with option 1 and 2 and all goes well and somehow you make it to the GF, you likely face some rent-a-geriatric who crushes your dreams. Option 3 at least allows you to create the team that will be able to defend such a possibility.

Again, tell me why Option 3 shouldn't be allowed in this game? Remember, Matt, this is a game and not a real-life similation of Basketball.

Tanking should be an option, and a viable one. Even in RL teams do it (sorry to all those AFL Demons fans out there I know it is a touchy subject).

The problem with tanking in BB is that it is BY FAR the best option, and because so many teams do it it then forces other teams to do it as well to compete with them.

Take my case for example, I got very unlucky in my last ABBL season with a swathe of injuries (3 starters) in the middle of re-structuring my team. I fell a long way off the pace and looked destined to face WA IS A DUMP in relegation series who was in his second (or third) season of tanking and had far more cash than me because of his tanking. He could easily afford 3 x 300k centres, so my two options were 1) spend my remaining dollars and pray it was enough or 2) sell the bulk of my players when I would make the most from them and tank making a fortune.

Pretty easy decision really.

I'm not saying that option shouldn't be allowed, but it seems that it has become the 'optimal' strategy to be successful in this game. I very much doubt that the BBs originally set out to design a game that required a period of two or three seasons where a user needs to deliberately lose to accumulate money, before they can compete at the top level.

In a 'perfect' game, there should be a number of different strategies available for a user to be successful, but no one particular strategy should be significantly more powerful than the others, otherwise it quickly becomes the only way to play the game (and be successful). The strategy of tanking is too powerful at the moment, as you've described above.

I'd say there's a few different reasons for this, including the training system and current state of the transfer market. It's very difficult to make decent profits from training, especially considering that if you want to train more than three players at a time, your trainees will be of a lower skill set compared to your opponents. This essentially rules out training for profits, and as you've pointed out, how else are you supposed to make money and be competitive? It's no wonder that tanking is such an attractive proposition.

I also think that being able to buy players in immediately before finals/relegation games is part of the problem (as you mentioned). It seems a very easy fix would be to make it that a player has to be on your team by the All Star Game to be eligible to play in finals, but unfortunately I doubt it will ever happen.

I also think that being able to buy players in immediately before finals/relegation games is part of the problem (as you mentioned). It seems a very easy fix would be to make it that a player has to be on your team by the All Star Game to be eligible to play in finals, but unfortunately I doubt it will ever happen.

So many people, myself included, have suggested exactly this but the BB's are deaf to it. They seem to think it will kill the transfer market but don't believe it will fix a number of parts of the game (tanking/rent-a-players). Which is a shame because until these sorts of issues are fixed the game will never move on from being too much of a financial sim than a basketball sim