BuzzerBeater Forums

can you give us a list of the plethora of people that have tanked their way down, sold off, came back up and stayed there?

Well, since this tactic is just starting to be optimal now, you will have to give me a season or two. But Sharman is well on his way. I think there were at least two other examples in this thread of teams who have done this and banked large amounts of cash. Do you want me to link them?

I did it last season but did not demote. You do not have to demote to make this tactic work.

You have the information, but i am wrong if i say that during this offseason the ''GPD of the teams'' was and its in one of their lowests value?

I do have the feeling, the market is down, not because people doesnt want to pay high prices, i do think its more because managers cant afford to pay more since they havent liquidity.


So, I still have my doubts about this method of ''self tuning economy'' because its not working as fast as managers needs or at least this is what i observated or read in differents threads.

Just to put an example, if you compare this ''bubble'' to the houses ''bubble'' you will find the managers have invested all their time-money on their players training etc, but all this training value lost combined with the lack of liquidity its just a big fail.

So yes, definitively as i said before, the change of the salarys every season might not be enough and some more liquitidy to the game would make it better.


PD: Just about how hard its going, last season i did my best season on cup, but still lost some money, this season im still on red numbers, just winning 3-4K thanks to the cup and I dindt have any chance to sell 2 players during 3 weeks with reasonable prices. The only thing I see i will be affected coz the wheel its to slow and probably when im out of the cup my -366k will turn to -410k.

Last edited by Marot at 10/29/2010 9:25:08 PM

Is tanking a viable tactic in a high userbase country? Has anyone successfully tanked and come up stronger then before? I think this topic is getting really interesting, with some pretty good points. I don't think that taxing a team for having less than 12 players on the roster is the way to go. Listing just 5 players for a scrimmage should be ok (atleast in my opinion). Teams with less than 8 players on their roster (including injured players) should get automatic walkovers. I just can't imagine a team with less than 8 players on any level. I know atleast in estonia there is a rule that you must have atleast 5 starters, so you have to be able to list atleast 5 players for any game.
We can't actually drop the surveys all to 0.5 when a team decides to tank and get's 5 (8 lol)x 5k (or 1k) scrubs to fill his roster. Why? Because some countrys with low amount of users will start out in a league that might hand their asses to them every game anyway. I think tanking is not really an option in a country with a large userbase. If you happen to relegate, then getting up again might turn out to be a hard task. Spending 2+ seasons in a lower league will hurt you even more. Merchandise will drop anyway. I actully see no way to cut the tanking teams arena income. But I see some good ideas here, prolly we will get to that later on.
In the meantime I ressurected a suggestion (141756.8). Check it out and help to build that idea.

Last edited by Kukoc at 10/30/2010 7:36:26 AM

As often I agree with you. At the moment I need to sell stop. I need to sell but I can't do that cause I will earn 2 cents. If I will be sure that these 2 cents will remain 2 cents I could even start to sell someone but I'm really afraid that the prices will raise so basically in this case I will lose money and competitivity at the same time. It happened in the past...

In season 11 Joyo won the Italian championship with 6 players on roster: (20337401)
Imho he had a good luck but that's it

So Charles posts and this thread goes quiet (or continues to talk about tanking!!)

Who interprets his response as; (for transfer prices)

1) Inflationary
2) Potentially Inflationary
3) Cleverly written but will have little impact (therefore still deflationary in the short term)
4) Won't have an effect - we are still heading down!!

Lets just hope that such deflation will not be happening over and over again. You cannot expect from managers anything else than thinking about how much you can raise your ballance by tanking and so on... well just because its fun to watch how bubbles raise and cracks.

Im thinking about every 10k p/w in my budget if it is necessary, after kicking from the cup will probably sell some around 20k p/w players, because they just want too much, are giving me only 100k profit p/w, so I cannot buy anything stronger for some time to promote. I know my worries are on so low level, but while I dont want to sell my trainees very cheap, is hard to say what to do in advance instead of trying to increase p/w profit.

Last edited by aigidios at 10/30/2010 1:47:59 PM

Who interprets his response as; (for transfer prices)

1) Inflationary
2) Potentially Inflationary
3) Cleverly written but will have little impact (therefore still deflationary in the short term)
4) Won't have an effect - we are still heading down!!

Well if he's right, which I am sure he is, then it doesn't matter what he actually said. If people are making money hand over fist, they are not going to sit on it forever. So I guess it is only a matter of time before the market turns.

So here is what we learned so far. Prices are low right now but people are making money and they should increase sooner or later. On the other hand Charles indicated that the BBs have no intention of making any rapid changes that would affect the economy so this would be a slow process.

In my opinion the prices for mid-level players will not increase much this way. People making more money could increase the demand for top players instead. Right now the market is full of half-trained half-anygood players so the demand for those wont change much. Top players on the other hand people are abit more reluctant to sale because of the low prices and I can see the demand for those increasing parallel to the increase of cash reserves.