BuzzerBeater Forums

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.

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.

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.

Okay, this might slightly improve the situation for competitve teams, but you are not solving the problem.

You maybe right, we actually forgetting that BB already rewards bonuses for promoted teams but it has no or little impact on tanking, so instead we should focus on punishing "bad behavior" for example no bonuses for teams that promote the second time to higher division. I've seen team that tanked twice in highest division so he wins II division, he gets 1M bonus, he is tanking all season, he gets like 5M, after one season he returns he gets another 1M bonus and... he tanks again... after one season he will get another 1M bonus, taking out 1M the second time he is promoted could be part of solution. The same guy also drafted player with all time great potential, so the second part of solution - don't let tanking team get the 1st draft. Because now only tanking teams and bots get the best draft picks. 3rd part of solution simply increasing salary cap, because I believe it is still too low.

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.

I am not completely against salary cap, but I believe it is different issue because it involves not only tanking teams, but also teams that actually competed, saved money or made smart trades and decided to use their money to win. I believe after tanking issue will be solved, BB will turn their eyes on possibility of salary cap.

Last edited by Ghost Master at 5/30/2012 2:23:06 PM

so instead we should focus on punishing "bad behavior" for example no bonuses for teams that promote the second time to higher division.

When you have 5 divisions in a league, even promoting three times in a row is possible. And with no tanking.

Last edited by Rycka at 5/30/2012 2:13:25 PM

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".

No, you totally missed what I was saying. Prices need to be *higher* relative to salaries. The money tanking players make is on salaries. The money they have to spend to make their suddenly good team when they binge, is on transfers. Decrease the salaries, and/or increase the transfer costs, and tanking doesn't work.

In that other game, for instance, prices are often 100x weekly salaries. If you have to pay 2.5 million for a 25,000 player, you have to tank a *long* time in order to ever make enough for your binge, and the strategy isn't worth it.

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?

That's a good point. The difference between series, in terms of income, may be too high if this is the case.

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?

No. And the other game only rewards you for positions one through four any way. But at least there's incentive to try. I think this is a minor help at best. They key is that ratio of transfer cost to salary cost. The reason why tanking/binging happens at such a low level (Div. IV, in the US, for instance) has to do with the ratio of income/salary.

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

It's hardly blackmail to say that I'd be willing to pay for a quality product, but whatever. This is the only thing in the way of BB being a quality product. I realize a few people *want* to tank and binge. They think it's a strategy, and that it's "clever." From things they've said, I think the BB's thought so, when they made the design decisions I outlined. It's possible they still think so, but there are some indications they don't. I think it's too obvious to be clever, and not fun.

so instead we should focus on punishing "bad behavior" for example no bonuses for teams that promote the second time to higher division.

When you have 5 divisions in a league, even promoting three times in a row is possible. And with no tanking.

We clearly don't want to punish teams for being successful, and I agree... not everyone who succeeds, tanked & binged.

Then what do you think does?

No, you totally missed what I was saying. Prices need to be *higher* relative to salaries. The money tanking players make is on salaries. The money they have to spend to make their suddenly good team when they binge, is on transfers. Decrease the salaries, and/or increase the transfer costs, and tanking doesn't work.

Question for you. How much would you think a player as a sg 15/15/16/12/12/12/1/1/1/1 and a player 14/14/15/11/11/11/6/7/6/7 worth respectively? Which one you would choose? Which one is higher salary, quote: "Prices need to be *higher* relative to salaries"?

Last edited by Rycka at 5/30/2012 3:25:59 PM

I'd guess the first has a higher salary, and I'd certainly rather have the second. So yes, I'd expect the transfer price ratio of the first to be lower than that of the second. Clearly in Div. III/IV, I'm used to players who are worse than either. I think it would be a better game if Salaries tracked actual player value better, because new players would make fewer mistakes, but that's a different issue really, and not one I'd stomp my feet about. And figuring that out is interesting too, so I can see it either way.

Because the salaries do track player value, not all players, even of a certain age group, should be valued at the same ratio of transfer price to salary, if that's your point. Still, there are players that will win you championships, at least in div III and IV, that cost way less than 2 or 3 times their annual salaries. Which is what makes it so that tanking for a few years lets you buy those players. If usable players cost 10x their annual salaries, you'd have to tank too many years to buy up a team, it wouldn't be worth it, and people wouldn't do it. The *gain* in tanking is in the cost of the salaries you aren't paying. The *cost* of binging is partly in the transfer costs you pay. Increase the cost relative to the gain, and it won't work.

Increase the cost relative to the gain, and it won't work.

While i do agree on this. But you should consider this... High salary burns your account of cash quickly when you have salary's above your league level. I won leagues with lower salary's than my opponent's in finals. That's a point too. And... I've seen tanking teams a lot. Neither of them are successful until now. Yes they "flash", for a short period of time. Show me a successful tanker, the one who is dominating for two or three seasons (or more).