BuzzerBeater Forums

I am not tanking - I am just not competing

That's pretty much the definition of tanking...

Maybe I am a treadmill team. If reaching the playoffs and playing the conference finals every season is equal to tanking, we should shut down the game immediately...

that's different than "Not competing"

I am not tanking - I am just not competing

That's pretty much the definition of tanking...

Maybe I am a treadmill team. If reaching the playoffs and playing the conference finals every season is equal to tanking, we should shut down the game immediately...

that's different than "Not competing"

Well, I am not going to start a discussion to find the most precise definition. At the end of the day, I can maximize my income (could make over 300k every week if I wanted), still reach the playoffs and ball like a boss.

This thread has now become less about the proposed new tax and more about finding a solution to tanking prevention. that's OK, since it's closely connected. But there are problems here.

First of all, we cannot even agree what the definition of tanking is. What separates tanking from rebulding? Tanking teams from teams with no real opposition? Finally, as Sentinel remarked, it is a minefield of to navigate when trying to code a tanking "detector". Its not technically hard, it's incredibly hard to decide which prerequisites a team needs to fill in order to be declared a tanker and subsequently, be punished.

One of the fundamental problems is that most teams can only be competitive 2 games per week. But what when they want to win that cup game - then they have to "tank" one league match. Even then they might get pummeled in the cup and end up with two big losses in the week. Should they be punished for that? Of course not.

If we go the salary used vs total salary route, there are again exceptions and problems. There is currently no simple, clear cut way to detect tanking. In time, we might find a mechanism to do it, but I don't think it will be perfect nor simple. Until then, salary floor seems to be the best tool to discourage it, and I'd gladly increase it if there were no examples like the ones already mentioned here, where promotees have a hard time filling the existing salary floor.

So you see, it's easy to shout "just punish tanking!" when you're not the one that actually has to implement it.

This could lead me to quitting after 30 seasons.........

blablabla, empty threats...

...how much money do you have?
...do you know how you will be taxed next season?

As soon as you can answer the second question, you can consider your future in this game.

Well it did in Hattrick. So don't see how that's empty. You got some insight big man.

1) Take a wild guess

2) No

3) Thanks for your comments

Last edited by Mod-worthy42 at 11/17/2015 11:08:26 AM

So you see, it's easy to shout "just punish tanking!" when you're not the one that actually has to implement it.

Easy way: Increase the salary floor. I have seen nobody in this thread arguing against that. That would help reducing 'hoarding' whatever that means to anyone. This is definitely not going to affect those that are trying to win or have a "normal" payroll compared to the league average which is the vast majority of managers in this game.

Hard way: Tweak the fan survey so that when multiple conditions are met the attendance decreases much more than it does now. Proposed list of conditions:
- The team is not new, but has been around for at least a couple of seasons
- The team has a history of poor performance. It might be a long series of lost games or blowouts against human managers. You can decide where to set the bar (6 home games? 10 overall games?). Even better you can link the poor performance requirement to PD. A tanking team will not recover in garbage time like a "trying team" would. Therefore you have results like GM-Nik0 of -1700 PD over 22 games. You have had no problem in deciding parameters before. Shall we say an average of -45 PD over a team's last 8 games (including those from the previous season)?
- The team has a large enough arena (e.g. not selling out bleachers and LT or a set of precise levels). This would protect those managers who can't afford to pay players because they actually don't have enough seats. The fans of these managers would naturally understand that the team is outmatched and are willing to stick with the team during hard times...as opposed to teams who have top arenas, but are playing in D3 or D4. Anyway, managers with small arenas cannot make 300k+ from tanking in the first place.
- Collapse together human managers in the lowest divisions like you do in Utopia, so that there is a reasonable number of human managers in each league where possible. Knecht might find it more interesting then

We all recognise that in leagues where there are many bots these criteria might take longer to kick in or they might not kick in at all. A better situation is still better even when it's not perfect.

Also note that the criteria do not need to be disclosed. Add an extra ball in the fan survey or increase the impact of the ones which are already there.

What separates tanking from rebulding? Tanking teams from teams with no real opposition?

Frankly does it really matter if someone has sold his entire team to rebuild (rebuild when? 5 weeks or 5 seasons down the line?), to tank or train? The problem is hoarding new profits, isn't it? Therefore what matters is that some people are making 200k+, 300k+ per week because they have teams who are designed "not to compete" against other human managers.

I think nobody is asking that "rebuilding" or "tanking" teams get negative income. The idea is either to force them to buy at least a few players who are appropriate for the level they play in (so they can at least compete against a few other human managers in their league) or make 100k where they are currently making 300k. At the moment these managers are the ones accumulating cash with a view of spending it when they feel they have enough to "buy" promotions.

I'd gladly increase it if there were no examples like the ones already mentioned here, where promotees have a hard time filling the existing salary floor.

You can always have an exemption like you have for new teams. 4 weeks at the old salary floor (or 0 for new teams, as it is now). That will give enough time to get enough cash and time to sort out the roster before getting hit by the new floor.

You could also introduce the step up over time rather than in 1 go.

Last edited by Lemonshine at 11/17/2015 12:49:10 PM

"Do we really want people to be able to buy the B3?"

It's happened in the past on more than one occasion. To me, something is wrong if the outcome of the B3 is determined by which manager can throw the most money at it."

I completely agree with you, but I think we have to give credit to Marin re: Overextension tax, because so far it has worked and nobody has been able to "buy" a B3 title since it's been implemented. In fact you have Mloty Stargard in the semifinals or thereabout for nearly 10 seasons and KK Mordor winning 3 in a row.

Fair question.

My plan is not to buy it. But to build towards it. I have trainees, money and patience.

But the way it works now, training and manager skill alone wont win anything.

I gave your post a basketball because I think it is a fair analysis of the problem of tanking, and I think you are acknowledging (not denying) that tanking is a problem.

One of the fundamental problems is that most teams can only be competitive 2 games per week. But what when they want to win that cup game - then they have to "tank" one league match. Even then they might get pummeled in the cup and end up with two big losses in the week. Should they be punished for that? Of course not.

The "fundamental problem" that you put your finger on is a problem in game design. If the game is designed so that a team cannot compete in three games a week, that is a game design problem you should always consider when making changes. And if the problem exists only to serve the current design of training, well...

EDIT: we have to acknowledge, that once you are training players, you are not playing to the fullest potential of your team - thus you should be punished...

No, thus training should be reformed.

We could avoid this luxury tax and get rid of the overextension tax if that attendance drop would be implemented. That would make a lot of things easier and even more realistic.

I agree. I also wonder if the Fan Survey is difficult or even impossible to reform, given what an obvious problem it is and the great (positive) effect that reforming it would have on the game. I wonder if it was added somewhere along the line as just another "bell and whistle" and no one realized what a major element of the game it could become.

If it is possible to reform, I think it should go almost to the top of Marin's to-do list.