BuzzerBeater Forums

Doesn't 10K or even 20K sounds very few (comparing to the total income of a team) for having so much drafted players you are using?

I think that it is noting to look down on. I will be getting 20k extra every week of the season. 280k extra just for having trained some of my own drafted players. Sure its not much, but if you got a lot more i think tanking would be a more attractive tactic since that is what often is needed to grab a great draftee. An if you got say 50k extra every week you'd get 700k extra every season as a bonus. And making tanking more attractive really doesn't sound like something you would stand behind =)

The affect of losing money (due to lack of audience because of aq losing team...) should create an equilebrium.
As there is already tanking, it proves that the lose due to a losing team is not high enough.
And I "grat" you for joining the "group agianst tanking"...

Doesn't 10K or even 20K sounds very few (comparing to the total income of a team) for having so much drafted players you are using?

I think that it is noting to look down on. I will be getting 20k extra every week of the season. 280k extra just for having trained some of my own drafted players. Sure its not much, but if you got a lot more i think tanking would be a more attractive tactic since that is what often is needed to grab a great draftee. An if you got say 50k extra every week you'd get 700k extra every season as a bonus. And making tanking more attractive really doesn't sound like something you would stand behind =)

The affect of losing money (due to lack of audience because of aq losing team...) should create an equilebrium.
As there is already tanking, it proves that the lose due to a losing team is not high enough.
And I "grat" you for joining the "group agianst tanking"...

to be honest i think it is even to high, maybe not for the tanking but with high income differences you had it is hard to catch up. If it get even higher loosing would be only affordable with tanking, till you have enough to actually turn into a winning team.

Doesn't 10K or even 20K sounds very few (comparing to the total income of a team) for having so much drafted players you are using?

I think that it is noting to look down on. I will be getting 20k extra every week of the season. 280k extra just for having trained some of my own drafted players. Sure its not much, but if you got a lot more i think tanking would be a more attractive tactic since that is what often is needed to grab a great draftee. An if you got say 50k extra every week you'd get 700k extra every season as a bonus. And making tanking more attractive really doesn't sound like something you would stand behind =)

The affect of losing money (due to lack of audience because of aq losing team...) should create an equilebrium.
As there is already tanking, it proves that the lose due to a losing team is not high enough.
And I "grat" you for joining the "group agianst tanking"...

to be honest i think it is even to high, maybe not for the tanking but with high income differences you had it is hard to catch up. If it get even higher loosing would be only affordable with tanking, till you have enough to actually turn into a winning team.

I love your "concepts".
Instead of making the game better by solving tanking & the salary differences, let's allow tanking to be worth money (this is after all a "good" BB-managing desicion...). And of course you will be agianst solving the salary differences by Salary-Cap, and we all know why...

Sorry your all against me are egoist approach is a very low level,

Sorry your all against me are egoist approach is a very low level,

This explains why you are against Salary-Cap and Luxury-Tax...

And of course the fact that you are not using your own draft players, and you are not investing in it, and basically playing eBay-managing has nothing to do with that you are against the suggestion presented on this thread.

Scouting: $ 10 000

Salary cap wouldn't be a solution, since it still favours the money, since salary efficient players are more expensiv to buy, but guess what would be even better under a cap. If it get implemented my player would instantly gain eextra value, instead of loosing it through aging. So why should i be against it? Course i doubt the efficiency of it, since a salary cap is just for guarante profits and it is good that top teams loose money like today.

Ok i confess i always take the player i need over hthe player i get from the draft, but ->

Scouting: $ 10 000

And i ask me why you joined a ebay managing games, when you hate that player get transfered?

The Salary-Cap and the Luxury tax are the basic rules used at the NBA and on other leagues exactly for that - making the game more competitive.
It is already the case today regarding buying better players - the one who has more money still will have better chance to buy a better player.

I present to you, the new commisioner once again.
For him, "The draft" is not a BB-managing feature, but having an eBay auction where he uses the extra time he has, is the core and only feature that this game should be based on.