BuzzerBeater Forums

The game manual isn't very explicit on this one. I can't find if the effect would continue the following season. I would assume it does, but would like to know for sure.

It will continue during the offseason and the next season, yes

lets imagine the scenario where you cant go up or down after 2/3 of season and you want to tank final 1/3 to earn some money to compete better next season.you get punished even for that?now that madness in my opinion...

Well, if you are not going to go down for sure after 2/3 of the season, then I can't imagine a scenario where you can't win a game of the last 7 keeping a roster near to the salary floor.
I don't think there will be too many teams punished for this. The most cases will be teams that give up the last third of the season.

Last edited by Foto at 12/24/2016 10:14:56 AM

The whole concept is beyond stupid imo. Of course it will only affect a handful of managers, but the threat itself is a very bad situation to put sb in.

Definitely won't raise the excitement for the people affected.

I can't imagine a scenario where you can't win a game of the last 7

About time you guys come clean on this and say it out loud that it's not about tanking but about losing. Tanking is not just losing.

In any case the weakest team in a conference will always struggle to win one or more games in each third of the season. And if they don't win any game in the first third, you also made sure you erased the possibility for them to buy and try to win more games by killing their gate receipts.

Also a 50% penalty will take 11 home games to go away, 40% will take 9 games and so on, otherwise it will cumulate with a new penalty. Too long.

All of this while not punishing ANY tanking team in divisions where there is at least 1 bot per conference (and they are the majority in BB). Congratulations...you should have listened to Perpete.

Last edited by Lemonshine at 12/24/2016 11:53:49 AM

Congratulations...you should have listened to Perpete.

Interesting sentence. Were you present in the discussion?

And if they don't win any game in the first third, you also made sure you erased the possibility for them to buy and try to win more games by killing their gate receipts.

You forget that you should have money to suffer any fan boycott, so they can buy before and after it.

Interesting sentence. Were you present in the discussion?

Contrary to others, I read what's written in forums, especially when the reply is addressed to me. I find it extremely hard to believe that Perpete lied about it.

You forget that you should have money to suffer any fan boycott, so they can buy before and after it.

Not when mediocre players go for 2.5 million. Your sentence would hold some truth, if any, if you allowed people to buy a couple of starters for the level they are in...when you need to save 4 million for a single really good and decently young player and you penalise that manager with a 30% or 40% penalty what you say needs to be taken with a grain of salt or should be dismissed altogether.

You also conveniently forget that you get a boycott if you have 500k in the bank even if you are making weekly losses...which is why this measure the way it's been implemented is:
a) not against tanking, because you can still happily tank so long you're not the worst team which is always the case in bot leagues and you cannot discriminate between tanking people and people who lose games because of training or injuries (this is very curious since most changes in the last 10 seasons have been made using training as explanation).
b) not a reasonable economic measure since it ignores how much money someone is really making (which is the purpose of this thread). In fact people with high staff cost (or-to make it even simpler- people who train) are the ones who are the most affected by something like this...

Last edited by Lemonshine at 12/24/2016 1:38:58 PM

So based on the table in the Game Manual the people running this game feel any amount of cash reserves over $500K (since this is the level where the reduction in ticket sales kicks in) is too much and indicates a team is hording too much money.

Nevermind the fact that this is a long-term management simulation game and saving up a large cash reserve while building a competitive team that you then spend on making a run for the top is just common sense.

Turning the game into a short-term, season-to-season thing essentially turns it into the equivalent of a one year fantasy sports league. That's not why most users play games like this.

Contrary to others, I read what's written in forums, especially when the reply is addressed to me. I find it extremely hard to believe that Perpete lied about it.

Your sentence implies several things
a) Perpete and me were present in the discussion where this measure was taken (English is a language where "you" is sometimes confusing, but I assume that you include me in your "you should have listened to Perpete.")

b) Perpete and me have different opinions about this subject

c) My opinion won and Pepete's lost

I guess they are too many conclussions and I wonder where in forums you have read something that could you guide to all of them together.

Of course it makes sense that you save money and even is fair that you choose a tanking option, or what you think it's better for your team. I don't think this way of playing has been destroyed, in fact it's still a good choice.
But all strategies in this game should have advantages and disadvantages. And playing to win shouldn't be worst as playing to lose, at least not with so a high difference.