BuzzerBeater Forums

You bought players like mine, played in league comparable to mine got results similar to mine.

Yeah except I went 15-7 against human managers. It's not quite the same. If I had the same team that you have now, I would have relegated, quite possibly winning 0 to 2 games instead of 15. If I sold the starters and dropped 80k-90k salary/week, I would have been tanking and I would have been in a similar situation as you. Therefore I'm telling you that:
a) 11 OD or 13 OD is enough to start in D2 without a substantial drawback. In fact that's probably enough for D1 with some tactical arrangements. Obviously you won't play the best lineup you can, however that does not matter in most games where you are outmatched or where you outmatch your opponent
b) clearly you'd need to spend on better starters to have a chance of avoiding relegation. If you don't then you are not trying to win and you're tanking.

Training has nothing to do with tanking and managing finances. The fact that you can't compete in D2 while training is pure myth. The Finnish guy who trained that 158 TSP beast, Hakkinen, spent nearly all his training period in D2 and D1. Obviously you also need to spend some money...or play in a league full of bots.

Hope this clarifies. :)





Last edited by Lemonshine at 11/18/2015 1:11:09 PM

Then you could have spared everyone your resistance on the subject.

If you are in D2 with a 70k payroll while everybody else averages 200k-250k clearly you are not trying to win any game, but you can make 250k-300k profit per week. If you're training and carrying a normal salary to avoid relegation (say 200k), you can still make 150k per week and compete/fight for playoffs or survival. I don't see how this is difficult to understand.

Do you think it's logical that a team with a 0-22 -1700 PD team makes 5x-10x more profits in a season than any other team in the league?

Nowhere in the world can you make about the same amount of money from fans with a 0-22 record and a 12-12 record. Look here:(http://espn.go.com/nba/attendance/_/year/2015/sort/allPct) and then ask yourself if that seems to bear any correlation with on-court performance.

True, but in buzzerbeater, attendance is also correlated with on-court performance, 0-22 team have lower attendance than 12-12 teams. The link you posted seems to show that BB fans and NBA fans react similarly to poor performance. It seems like in the NBA, the worst teams have about 70-80 % of the attendance of the most successful teams, which is similar and maybe even better than tanking teams in BB.Of course, NBA attendance is also affected by market size so teams like New York will always draw fans.

I think a big problems is that the current high prices encourage tanking, since the cost to buy great or even just good players is quite high. The higher prices are, the more it benefits teams with the most money since they can most easily afford the best players. I liked when prices were lower. You could get world class players for reasonable prices so the game was less about who could afford the best players and more about who could build the best team.

Last edited by Mountaineer at 11/18/2015 4:35:32 PM

I think a big problems is that the current high prices encourage tanking, since the cost to buy great or even just good players is quite high. The higher prices are, the more it benefits teams with the most money since they can most easily afford the best players. I liked when prices were lower.

Chicken and egg. You can't spend what you don't have can you? It stands to reason that with lower profits prices will go down.

That's true, but I think tanking has less of an effect on prices since tanking isn't actually the most efficient way to make money, especially in the higher divisions. In D1 or D2 you can make more money by having a team close to the salary floor. You will have higher attendance and should be able to avoid demotion. Do you have a problem with this kind of behaviour because in the end both this kind of team and the tanking team will eventually achieve success by virtue of having more money than their competition.

Do you have a problem with this kind of behaviour because in the end both this kind of team and the tanking team will eventually achieve success by virtue of having more money than their competition.

No I have a problem with managers hoarding money not because of "management skills", but because of gimmicks that only work in this game. Daytrading is more realistic than making huge amounts of extra profits from tanking.

If you can avoid relegation or win some games with a payroll far below the salary floor clearly you shouldn't be taxed. Tanking teams are those who usually only win against bots or other tanking teams. If a manager is below the salary floor in D1 there is a very high likelihood that that manager is effectively tanking and will only be able to compete against other tanking teams

If a manager is below the salary floor in D1 there is a very high likelihood that that manager is effectively tanking and will only be able to compete against other tanking teams

But where is the problem here? Punishment happens due to the floor anyways - if one does not want to play... We talk about one to two teams per league here...

No problem, they should be able to tank if they want to. All we are saying is that you shouldn't be "rewarded" for it with $3-$4 million every time they do it...