BuzzerBeater Forums

BB Global (English) > Season 26 Feedback Topic

Season 26 Feedback Topic (thread closed)

Set priority
Show messages by
This Post:
00
252782.129 in reply to 252782.126
Date: 1/2/2014 1:13:21 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
55315531
You know poker? The moment you think you're going to win this game you can do this: risk all your money, go "all in" - if you win - fine. If you lose you might even be bancrupt.

In BB it's like this: go all in, overspend. If you win: you'll have the jackpot and promote. Then lose the next 22 games intentionally and they are throwing money at you. If you risk everything and lose: do the same...

This Post:
00
252782.130 in reply to 252782.129
Date: 1/2/2014 1:27:55 PM
Maddogs-Hellas
IV.5
Overall Posts Rated:
13091309
Μy friend, we agree again on your example!
Where we do not, is that you associate overspending strictly with tanking, as a consequence of it.
I say that it exists and causes problems, without tanking as well.


This Post:
00
252782.131 in reply to 252782.130
Date: 1/2/2014 2:06:54 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
55315531
Μy friend, we agree again on your example!
Where we do not, is that you associate overspending strictly with tanking, as a consequence of it.
I say that it exists and causes problems, without tanking as well.

Maybe you're right and I'm not. But imho the easiest fix for overspending would be a salary cap & luxury tax. Now we only have luxury tax, kind of half-hearted.

One of the problems I have with the overspending rule is that it relies too much on people attending your games. There's too little influence for us managers and too much up and down with people attending games (and yes, I'm using a PR of higher level).

Another problem is it doesn't stop overspending, it just makes it more expensive. So all those tankers out there have to tank a season longer before they overspend again... (seriously 5 million + 900k for a draftee - you never make that much money in a season by training a player)!

This Post:
11
252782.132 in reply to 252782.131
Date: 1/2/2014 2:39:45 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
55315531
Another reason why I dislike this overspending rule: injuries. As a serious manager you estimate how much money you make a week and how much salary you can afford (say 450k/week). Your league is competitve and you have to fight to stay off relegation / demotion. Then suddenly one of your startes (60k/week) is injured for two weeks. So in reality he'll most likely be out for 3 weeks (gameshape). You need another player to play instead of him. So you buy one. And all of a sudden you're "overspending" although you've got 1 million on your bank account.

I'm not exaggerating here. Happened quite a few times that one of my players with 80k / even 200k got injured. Tieg even twice in his last season with me, second time for 4 weeks. My doctor wasn't that bad.

These injuries occur and they have to, because they happen in reality, too. But another time one is punished twice by this new rule.

Last edited by LA-Karangula at 1/2/2014 2:41:24 PM

This Post:
00
252782.133 in reply to 252782.132
Date: 1/2/2014 3:01:38 PM
Maddogs-Hellas
IV.5
Overall Posts Rated:
13091309
Excellent point there and one for the "suggestions". Injured players excluded from the OT mix.
Or injured players exluded if replacement is bought before financial update and has minimum x % salary, comparing to the injured's one.

Salary cap and luxury tax would be ideal, but i suppose there are great technical issues, let alone that there should be special provisions for every division and every division group, in order to be just.

Attendances is another matter i see as a separate problem, that encourages tanking as well. Some tweaking went on last season, but personally i dont think it was nowhere near enough. More is needed and its urgent.

Last edited by maddoghellas at 1/2/2014 3:03:05 PM

This Post:
22
252782.134 in reply to 252782.132
Date: 1/2/2014 3:38:38 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
32293229
Another reason why I dislike this overspending rule: injuries. As a serious manager you estimate how much money you make a week and how much salary you can afford (say 450k/week). Your league is competitve and you have to fight to stay off relegation / demotion. Then suddenly one of your startes (60k/week) is injured for two weeks. So in reality he'll most likely be out for 3 weeks (gameshape). You need another player to play instead of him. So you buy one. And all of a sudden you're "overspending" although you've got 1 million on your bank account.

I'm not exaggerating here. Happened quite a few times that one of my players with 80k / even 200k got injured. Tieg even twice in his last season with me, second time for 4 weeks. My doctor wasn't that bad.

These injuries occur and they have to, because they happen in reality, too. But another time one is punished twice by this new rule.


The counter-argument is that users have every opportunity to run a roster that's deeper rather than top heavy, and anyone choosing to run a roster in that manner should be prepared to accept the consequences.

This Post:
00
252782.135 in reply to 252782.134
Date: 1/2/2014 5:26:01 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
299299
The counter-argument is that users have every opportunity to run a roster that's deeper rather than top heavy, and anyone choosing to run a roster in that manner should be prepared to accept the consequences.
That's an extremely good point. Look at the Bulls' recent history as an example.

However, I still think a better fix would have been with the fan survey. If you're in D.1 (or even D.2) anywhere in the world and you're playing every week a 10-50k roster and everyone else is playing 500k+ rosters... Your fans are going to be pretty unhappy, especially if you're accumulating wealth like nothing else, and even more if you've already got millions in the bank. The only fans that would turn up would be religiously loyal ones or fans for the other team.

This Post:
00
252782.136 in reply to 252782.135
Date: 1/2/2014 6:26:15 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
32293229
The counter-argument is that users have every opportunity to run a roster that's deeper rather than top heavy, and anyone choosing to run a roster in that manner should be prepared to accept the consequences.
That's an extremely good point. Look at the Bulls' recent history as an example.

However, I still think a better fix would have been with the fan survey. If you're in D.1 (or even D.2) anywhere in the world and you're playing every week a 10-50k roster and everyone else is playing 500k+ rosters... Your fans are going to be pretty unhappy, especially if you're accumulating wealth like nothing else, and even more if you've already got millions in the bank. The only fans that would turn up would be religiously loyal ones or fans for the other team.


Absolutely! I think the fan survey is woefully inadequate in terms of the tanking situation and is just merely poor in general. I hope that the next major change is in that area.

This Post:
00
252782.137 in reply to 252782.129
Date: 1/2/2014 8:25:39 PM
Petrosian Club Montevideo
II.4
Overall Posts Rated:
132132
yeah, well, we all know it sucks that part.

BUT, it's not like it doesn't happen in the real world. If anyone here thinks tanking is some sort of capital sin, you should look at the worst NBA teams that, not only openly tank [besides destroying their roster and fielding an NBDL team, and having a head coach that washes his car like he coaches], ALL have way to good superavits, business-wise. These guys make millions from TV, arena, merchandising, copyright stuff from franchise use, etc, etc. And I don't see the NBA Commissioner designing taxes and algorithms to punish the tank jobs [let's not forget he's an employee of the OWNERS, not some independent figure]. So it's not like you can have a no-tanking league.

I think it's tough to draw the line between forcing hands and to police EVERY LITTLE thing in the game. We all want the game to be more competitive, full of good managers, etc. But can we seriously ask for everything to go our way? I don't know.

From: Brutus

This Post:
11
252782.138 in reply to 252782.115
Date: 1/3/2014 2:53:30 AM
Brutus Buckeye
II.2
Overall Posts Rated:
206206
Second Team:
The Ironmen
Last round ONE team in my leage has used. it. 1 out of 16 teams, yes indeed it's almost nobody.

I hope we will see 100% against the bots tonight. That would prove me wrong.


Should always be used against BOTs but I'm to sure we should expect a really high usage in competitive games. So far I have not used it in League games. I will only use it when I am confident what the other team will do, I don't want the negative impact if I am wrong.

I like the feature though because it makes it more difficult for teams to play Look Inside every game. If they do then its easy for me to predict it and get some advantage. I think that's why this feature was introduced.

Message deleted
Advertisement