BuzzerBeater Forums

I rest my case.

Listen, you don't strike me as someone who is unfair, and for what it's worth, I respect your opinion - I even said how I usually agree with you in that first post I wrote - but you're clearly defending the system right now, that being intentionally or not. Not so much in this particular post - actually, judging by this one, I would say you're on my side :-) - but definitely in the earlier ones.

Edit:
And just for the record, I wasn't screaming "I got robbed!". I was just offering my two cents to an ongoing discussion. Similarly, I have no problem with Edju. He was used purely as an example.

Last edited by Mr. Hyde at 12/6/2011 3:35:43 AM

I think getting the fifth spot is not tanking. Managers sometimes need to lose a game on purpose to be able to keep themselves in the cup or manage game shape for a chance to win the next game. If you manage to pull out fifth spot you actually have a team that is able to compete. Don't you agree?
About the walkovers. I think walkover should be any game, that has less than five players in lineup. It's unreal to just pick fans from attendance to be your starters. I can understand, that perhaps the GE needs a spot filler and can't run with 4 vs 5 simulation, but that should only happen if someone get's injured, ejected or fouled out. Sure you can suit up one injured player and have him limp off after the game starts, but I prefer 5 healthy players start the game rule.
After every walkover, the club not coming to compete should get fined by the league by a sum equal to player salary floor. This way they can collect their income and pay atleast some of it away as fines. League player salary floor should be somewhat raised. I think the negative effects of a team tanking and relegating, negates his one seasonal income as a higher league team.

Last edited by Kukoc at 12/6/2011 4:47:51 AM

And just for the record, I wasn't screaming "I got robbed!".

This wasn't directed to you, but to the OP. Thanks for respecting my opinion, I try to be fair as much as possible

I'm going to ignore the first two paragraphs, as they're little more than sarcasm and innuendo.

I'm well aware of existence of other teams who do the same thing, so there is really no reason for you to bring them into the conversation when I'm really trying to discuss Edju.
Yes, I know about Heatcoatmen, and yes, I agree, his case is even more absurd; but I already addressed that in one of my previous posts, didn't I? So, why do you talk about him again?
Yes, I know about Jason - I play in that league, you know; I know who my leaguemates are and what they do - and yes, I agree, he should be penalized for it, too; but again, what does he have to do with the point I'm trying to make about Edju? Yes, I know about Jason - I play in that league, you know; I know who my leaguemates are and what they do - and yes, I agree, he should be penalized for it, too; but again, what does he have to do with the point I'm trying to make about Edju?
Do you see where I'm going at with this? Does this help you to see why I said what I said in that last post of mine?

I brought up Heathcoat and Jason to show what I see as the true definition of tanking. I could have searched through other leagues to find another tanking team, but his was the most readily available choice. Jason's ultimate goal is to stockpile money and a high draft pick through relegation, while Edju's primary goal seems to be to avoid both the playoffs and relegation series through a fifth place finish.

You'd like to lump these two forms of losing together, that's fine. I see a key difference, and they both highlight different problems with the current setup of the game. First: teams trying to relegate, like Jason is currently, make way too much money because the salary floor is too low. Second: savvy users like Edju can throw their home matches, win their away games and still make a lot of revenue through attendance.

Raising the salary floor and tweaking the attendance formula would fix both of these issues. To some extent.





Last edited by Arthur Monay at 12/6/2011 6:48:44 PM

Those are 2 good posts, Wolph. I could only plus the 1st.

There are plenty of problems with the economics of this game. 11 home games to 12 financial updates every season, away games affect on the following game, the ability to successfully tank, making less money in the 3rd game of the finals series because you lost the 2nd on the road (i know that falls into a previously stated category but it pisses me off), the salaries of the best players in the game, etc...

There is a reason why the transfer list has degraded into the crap hole that it is. Obviously we have problems with the economy of this game. Most people can see this. However, there is a reason why things won't change...the BB's are arrogant enough to think things are perfect and that nothing is currently wrong with the economic state of this game or with how teams make/lose money in certain situations. It's idiotic, but it won't change. It's a pity...

There are plenty of problems with the economics of this game. 11 home games to 12 financial updates every season, away games affect on the following game, the ability to successfully tank, making less money in the 3rd game of the finals series because you lost the 2nd on the road (i know that falls into a previously stated category but it pisses me off), the salaries of the best players in the game, etc...

There is a reason why the transfer list has degraded into the crap hole that it is. Obviously we have problems with the economy of this game. Most people can see this. However, there is a reason why things won't change...the BB's are arrogant enough to think things are perfect and that nothing is currently wrong with the economic state of this game or with how teams make/lose money in certain situations. It's idiotic, but it won't change. It's a pity...

Arrogant or not, it's clear from a business standpoint that the BBs must assuage their user base or their customers will leave. And right now, it seems like the paying customers are complaining the loudest. While Charles' claim that tanking is a sup-optimal choice may in fact be true, the perception of a lot of users is that tanking is an economically viable choice. Raising the salary floor and punishing teams more severely for massive blowouts would go a long way towards fixing this problem in the eyes of many users. Wolph has some good ideas above for tweaking attendance.

There's no easy fix to the salary issue. Drastically decreasing the salaries of top players would widen the gap between upper and lower division teams, as the increased affordability of these players would drive transfer prices up, making it nearly impossible for teams without a stockpile of money to purchase them.

The 12 economic updates/11 home games is a non-issue for me. The Cup more than makes up for the economic difference and I think it adds a bit of strategy to the game.