BuzzerBeater Forums

Sub 100 TSP centers under 30 years go for more than 2.5 million these days.

100 TSP guards under 30 go for 2.5 mil to 3.6 million.

That is not the standard you can make big leaps in DIV I.

Normally this is in lower level leagues where we see new teams though so i guess that's a good thing?

a) not necessarily in lower leagues; b) I already explained the difference between tanking in D1 and D3 is currently not that big in terms of weekly profit (I know because I can see the economy for both)

No matter what the fans will start dropping whatever the reason is if you fill the requirements for it.

Good so it does not discriminate. Now, do you think it's fair to lump together teams who tank, teams with key injuries and teams who train young players? Note that the fan boycott is being sold as an anti-tanking measure.

since we all know the rules i'm thinking it cant be all that hard to adapt.

Yes adapting means not training or choosing worse trainers and doctors. Either way you are penalising training and training was the one thing that was admittedly put above everything else, as many taxes and changes have been implemented to make training more appealing.

Perhaps I should explain how to get staff with $1 salary so everyone can do it.

You are being penalized for having been on a losing streak.

Exactly which makes no sense in both game and real life comparisons. Say LeBron is injured and the Cavs lose 7 straight. He come back and they win 5 straight but nobody shows up at their games. Sure it makes sense.

Note that with your view the opposite should also be true: if you had a winning streak followed by a losing streak people would still come and see you. THIS is why it was always proposed that anti tanking is based on the current streak so you don't have carry over effects (both positive or negative). If you're really using this argument, based on what logic a bad stretch can affect you for a season (50%/5%=10, so 9 home games) and a good stretch does not affect you in any way?

Last edited by Lemonshine at 12/29/2016 6:20:35 AM

Let's try and make the best of it

I think he's saying the change is worse than no change. Considering the bot issue I'm also of the opinion that probably rolling this thing back would be a good idea...

keep coming up with better ways of doing it in the future.

How much more do you need to be said? I still got no answers to my concerns and no reason on why this system is better than alternatives except that it was easier to code. You want an example of negativity? I think this perfectly fits the bill of negativity, saying: "NO we won't do this -although some BBs actually support it- because it's a bit harder (not impossible) to code than the alternative".

Note that with your view the opposite should also be true: if you had a winning streak followed by a losing streak people would still come and see you.

Well isn't that exactly what will happen until you actually fail to win a game in 1/3 of the season?

No Manon that's not the opposite. The opposite would be that the more games you won the lower the boycott should be if you go into a losing streak. So if you start 7-0 you should have a 50% offset of a future boycott decreasing by 5% per home game. This would be the opposite, applying the same logic behind this new rule...

First of all you talk like everyone no matter what will be hit just as hard. And second, this will hit those that absolutely fail to win a single game during a third of the season. Something that shouldn't be impossible for any team that has a decent roster.

I think my roster last season was good enough to make the playoffs if I didn't have injuries and if I didn't train (i.e. playing 3 guards and 3 of the 4 best players of the team at C for 48 minutes every game). You can say this as many times as you want but I have factual evidence this can happen as it happened to me!
http://www.buzzerbeater.com/team/276019/schedule.aspx?sea...

Sure i can see extreme cases where a team may lose 2-3 top players for a long time where this may be unfair, but this must be such a rare case and a case where the team clearly didn't bother to staff a decent level doctor. And if he did and still gets such injuries on 2 or more players he must be extremely unlucky.

Arrows demoted from the EBBL after making the playoffs the previous season due to injuries (5 weeks to his best player). He might have won 1 game while his guy was out, I can't remember, but we did see a good team being miserable because of it.

I'm also not sure if training three 18 yo trainees should be done in a league where it will lead to automatic losses for such a long period of time. If you decide to do so you have made an active choice. And as long as you got funds you probably can get players to win at least three games that season by doing team training .

Ok so D1 shouldn't train 18yo and 19yo. Good to know. I wonder if this was done on purpose and something has changed in Marin's mind.

But also i think that the funds a team has needs to be looked at more then what situations actually will lead to a team being hit by a boycott.

Teemo disappeared but I wonder what he thinks about the thresholds. No one from the staff so far has clarified what they think people should be able to accomplish with 2,3,4,5 million in the bank, in terms of how many players you can buy that are going to make a difference. I will wait, perhaps sooner or later one of them will do it.


Last edited by Lemonshine at 12/29/2016 10:16:45 AM