BuzzerBeater Forums

BB Global (English) > Tanking

Tanking

Set priority
Show messages by
This Post:
00
218937.86 in reply to 218937.79
Date: 5/30/2012 8:09:26 AM
Ghost Masters
BLNO
Overall Posts Rated:
4949
So.. I think to solve the problem, BBs will have to change the arena attendance algorithm. Tanking teams should no longer get 400k+ in gate receipts. Losing every game should have a much more severe effect on this income. Plus, defeats by 50,60 or 70 point and more, should result in a much lower attendance in the next home game.


This solution would also hurt newly promoted teams that can't compete at higher level and actually lose a lot of games with roster they can afford and teams that lose on purpose to have better GS for cup games or playoffs.


Increasing salary floor will not work either, since this will punish teams that create strong balanced rosters with lower salaries, but are still competitive.


This is could be true in lower divisions or in micronations, for example in my division salary cap is 57k and I can have a roster with 50k salaries that will have record of 20-2 at the end of the season, but salary cup in higher division with lot of users being around 250k is just too low, you can't create strong balanced roster with 250k salaries for example in Spain or Italy.

Last edited by Ghost Master at 5/30/2012 8:33:35 AM

This Post:
00
218937.87 in reply to 218937.86
Date: 5/30/2012 9:29:33 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
3030
So.. I think to solve the problem, BBs will have to change the arena attendance algorithm. Tanking teams should no longer get 400k+ in gate receipts. Losing every game should have a much more severe effect on this income. Plus, defeats by 50,60 or 70 point and more, should result in a much lower attendance in the next home game.


This solution would also hurt newly promoted teams that can't compete at higher level and actually lose a lot of games with roster they can afford and teams that lose on purpose to have better GS for cup games or playoffs.


Not necessarily, as in this special case of a promoting team, a factor could be implemented to these teams to diminish this "lower attendance" effect (rather than removing it totally), and combined to the supporter boost, there would be little change.
but I don't know if it would be good to help too much these teams as many tanking teams are teams which just promote, no ?!
I have no idea of the ratio of old/new team...

anyway, i've seen many good suggestions here and a rather strong desire of change in some BB aspects, including tanking.
Really hope the remaining BB's will listen and do something, and not in 3 seasons !!
because I will be far away by then if nothing changes....


Last edited by Alex CB at 5/30/2012 9:30:20 AM

This Post:
00
218937.88 in reply to 218937.72
Date: 5/30/2012 10:20:17 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
299299

However, it's also true some players can play better after a trade, for example Stephen Jackson or Kawhee Leonard at Spurs.This would be a bit tougher to address.
Haha! I was about to post this but then I saw that you had said it already.

Spurs must have a level 7 trainer

From: Axis123

This Post:
00
218937.89 in reply to 218937.73
Date: 5/30/2012 10:23:12 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
299299
My opinion:
Buy player = GS Downgrade (1st half of season -1, 2nd half -2,
week or two before playoff -3) except if players GS lower 5;
Need team loyalty or Team chemistry (new START player mess up team)
Too much losses in a row, technical losses, not full line-up - fans boycott

+1 (million)

Honestly, tell me, who would want to support a team that played rubbish players and lost by a crazy amount? And, worse than that, who would want to go and watch games that might be forfeits?

This Post:
00
218937.90 in reply to 218937.89
Date: 5/30/2012 10:29:42 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
372372
I'm assuming the BBs read through the topics on Global, so considering the amount of discussion (and suggestions) that has taken place in here, it would be nice to get some kind of comment or feedback from them...

From: Axis123

This Post:
00
218937.91 in reply to 218937.89
Date: 5/30/2012 10:32:08 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
299299
Please "ball" posts you like, so the BB gods, if they're reading, can get an idea of what people like and don't like.

Ultimately, we are their customers.

This Post:
00
218937.92 in reply to 218937.73
Date: 5/30/2012 11:02:04 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
219219
And you should do something with players prices!!!
In generally promising draftees cost much more then good trained but older players. Its not normal...


what does impact draftees prices? FARM TEAMS. We need to get rid of them the sooner the better.

This Post:
00
218937.93 in reply to 218937.84
Date: 5/30/2012 12:08:50 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
32293229
D1:
8th 400k
7th 475k
6th 550k
5th 625k
4th 700k
3rd 800k
2nd 900k
1st 1 million


This doesn't address the fundamental inequities between the 5th place spot and 4th.

This Post:
00
218937.94 in reply to 218937.75
Date: 5/30/2012 12:55:11 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
181181
I believe the current system is totally flawed when teams that win championships has 0 income all season or even go to minus, on the other hand tanking team can make millions for not playing and with current market situation, those teams can fast gain huge advantage against teams that has 0 income but which are fighting. BB is constantly rewarding "bad" behavior - be in the last place and you have the best draft pick, be in a 5th place and you don't have to pay salaries, I want to see "good" behavior to be rewarded.


Okay, this might slightly improve the situation for competitve teams, but you are not solving the problem. Tanking should be not possible or at very least - not profitable. Rewards will only make the top teams feel not deceived, whereas the goal is to make all teams competitive with equal chances.

Why they have 0 income? An example from my league from last season. League III, I had a well balanced team (salary at around $220k), not bad arena, income at around $0 (changing from plus to minus to plus every week). Finished 3rd in my conference, but sold my whole team just before play-offs. You ask why? Top teams fighting for league II had team salary reaching almost $500k. That's more than twice as much as mine. The result of this is: team with highest team salary got promotion, one team got bankrupt (and now seems like manager quit this game), other rearranged rosters and getting ready for the next play-offs. So when you see those numbers, it's no wonder they have no income, and by rewarding them you only help them to pay that monster salaries in their next play-off run.

It won't make it useless, because tanking teams will just buy better, multiskilled players.


Maybe the salary cap doesn't solve the problem completely, but it would even the chances against tanked teams. If the teams in my league in last season were capped at around $250k I could have clearly a shot there, but with teams with $500k? No chance, just a waste of time and money.

Also keep in mind that market is extremely limited on those players, it would very hard to buy one just before play-offs.

From: Sindy

To: RSX
This Post:
11
218937.95 in reply to 218937.94
Date: 5/30/2012 1:21:27 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
2121
I think we all know that the BB's looked at a certain soccer management game before designing this one. And the design decisions they made to make BB different have directly contributed to tanking. The following are all differences:

1. The biggest one: Player Salaries get high compared to income much faster in this game, and they are much higher compared to transfer prices. The first means that it takes fewer seasons of playing BB to end up with a roster of salaries you can't sustain, thus encouraging a cycle of tanking and binging. The second means that for relatively little money on the transfer market, you can afford a roster of unsustainable players. This is all a result of the way Salaries ramp up in part, but it's also a fact that even scrubs cost more per week relative to income in this game.

2. A second contributor: Players from teams that quit are tossed back onto the transfer market, making more high salaried, skilled players available. The result of increasing supply is that prices drop (and therefore drop relative to player salary). Again, deliberate design decision, creating the problem.

3. This is another difference, but not the same sort of design decision, as that other game implemented a fix after this game got rolling. Players in this game play just as well for their brand new team as they do with teammates they've been playing with for years. That means that the team that just bought all its players after tanking for 3 years is at no disadvantage vs. the team that's been carefully nurturing its roster.

4. Money for where you finish... as has been discussed in this thread at length.

Used to be a supporter, am not, and if they fix the tanking/binging using these or other methods I'll be one again. It's not really the tanking that's the problem... it's the way the tankers profit in the non-tanking season.

From: Rycka

This Post:
00
218937.96 in reply to 218937.95
Date: 5/30/2012 2:01:18 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
272272
1. The biggest one: Player Salaries get high compared to income much faster in this game, and they are much higher compared to transfer prices. The first means that it takes fewer seasons of playing BB to end up with a roster of salaries you can't sustain, thus encouraging a cycle of tanking and binging. The second means that for relatively little money on the transfer market, you can afford a roster of unsustainable players. This is all a result of the way Salaries ramp up in part, but it's also a fact that even scrubs cost more per week relative to income in this game.


Player salaries get high because of the way regular user trains them. Should we increase teams income, because players are not trained in a efficient way? Should we make every team to afford high salaries? What good would it bring to the game?

2. A second contributor: Players from teams that quit are tossed back onto the transfer market, making more high salaried, skilled players available. The result of increasing supply is that prices drop (and therefore drop relative to player salary). Again, deliberate design decision, creating the problem.


I agree that dropped back players bring more skilled players to the table. But i disagree it's high salaried ones. And you here contradict yourself with the first statement. Is it not good that player prices drop? Because, quote: "Player Salaries get high compared to income much faster in this game".

3. This is another difference, but not the same sort of design decision, as that other game implemented a fix after this game got rolling. Players in this game play just as well for their brand new team as they do with teammates they've been playing with for years. That means that the team that just bought all its players after tanking for 3 years is at no disadvantage vs. the team that's been carefully nurturing its roster.


Nurturing or not, this game can't punish teams that are promoting. When you promote, you have to change two starting five players minimum. So what to do for promoted teams if they will be punished for this. It's difficult for them now, why make it more difficult?

4. Money for where you finish... as has been discussed in this thread at length.


Again, i'll bring just promoted teams here. So you promote. Finish 7th, win the relegation matches... and... get cents? Will you be able to finish next season higher?

Used to be a supporter, am not, and if they fix the tanking/binging using these or other methods I'll be one again. It's not really the tanking that's the problem... it's the way the tankers profit in the non-tanking season.


Let's not blackmail admins... I doubt they care about blackmailing ex-supporter's, but still be fair.

Advertisement