BuzzerBeater Forums

Was there a final consensus on the GS hit for buying players? It seems like a bad idea to me because buying expensive players cheaply is one of the only ways that teams can catch up without tanking. The top teams consistently make more money by winning - whether in home attendance, cup games, or merchandising - and so can maintain a higher salary.

The gameshape hit is supposed to be very short term so I'm not sure what tanking has to do with it.

My only point is that several teams have spent a lot of money and built salary efficient rosters. Unless one wants to accumulate the same amount of money, usually by tanking, the only way of staying competitive is by buying hihg salary players at the last week.

Anyway, whatever the final decision, it will work itself out.

Unless one wants to accumulate the same amount of money, usually by tanking, the only way of staying competitive is by buying hihg salary players at the last week.

It always amuses me when one confuses the concept of "easiest" with "only."

It always amuses me when one confuses the concept of "easiest" with "only."

Depends on your definition. The easiest way is to tank for 5 seasons, build up 20 million in the bank and then buy your team. I fail to see why this is superior to trying to win every year.

I don't mean to be too rude, but having had Dragan Abrlic on my team in the past, he's not a salary-efficient player. I can't see Gomez or Yuande's build either, but if you want to build up, consider selling the three of them and acquiring 3 players to replace them in the 80k-100k salary range. You'll still be competitive (not winning the league), and you'll make $250k a week extra.

I thought you said the same couple of teams win every year - are they the ones using the tactic of buying a couple of big salary players right before the deadline?

If not, then the tactic of buying these last minute additions to a playoff team isn't actually a successful one in your league for "trying to win every year."

If they are the ones winning every year, I'd think that would be a good argument for trying to limit the ability of teams to use such a tactic.

The teams with better finances are always going to have an easier time of using this tactic than those who are struggling financially. Both because they can more easily afford to add players from the TL and because they can better handle paying the high salary for the couple of weeks the player may be on the team to win whatever title they are going after.

I've always thought that the tactic of buying last minute additions for the playoffs/cup/bb3 was largely a short term one (i.e. to promote) which was likely to result in any team using it having additional long-term issues down the road. For a cup or BB3 victory, long-term impacts are largely not a consideration because the team is really only trying to win it that one year and not planning on completing the next. For league play, the idea is generally to win a promotion and then use the promotion bonus (and likely at least a minor tanking strategy the following season) to restock both the coffers and the roster.

It's not a strategy I would expect to be long-term successful, but also not one I would expect most people to be trying to use continually. Are there teams who successfully do this every season? Basically do a mini-tank all season long to just slip into the playoff and then add a high salary player or two for a run at a championship?

Or why not implement team chemistry.. I've been fussing about this ever since I restarted playing the game and now I don't see a more suitable time as to explain why it's such a good idea. It would punish teams that just 'rent' players constantly while awarding the managers who stick with one group of players for a long period of time. This won't have any effect on the NTs as well so I don't see why not go with this.

The teams who have done the best are those who have built salary-efficient teams that don't need much fiddling with. There is no question that this is the best way to be successful. This is very expensive, though, and the top teams in the IPBL spent upwards of $20 mil on their roster, which has taken several seasons of essentially marking time. However, there are also teams who do well enough to get into the playoffs and try to get over the top with one or two additions at the end. This has not worked out well for anyone in the past. A couple of seasons ago, we had a team that added $200k players in every position two weeks before the end of the season but still lost. It's a question of which you value more - the more successful strategy of taking it easy for a few seasons and then buying a bunch of expensive but low salary players or the, so far, unsuccessful strategy of trying to win every year.

I suspect that this is more of a more with micro-nations because of the limited competition even in the top league. Typically one team will win both cup and regular season and this works out to a big financial edge which keeps the team dominant.

I've decided never again to get players with legendary JS. I got Abrlic for the playoff games last season and kept him through the cup run. I like outside offenses but outside players always seem to underperform. As far as the other two players, they're alright and should keep me 2nd or 3rd in the IPBL. I'm now selling Abrlic now that I Cup run is over which will let me save $200k per week. I may try to add another player near the end of the season for the playoff run. This has not worked to date, at least to push over the top, but the alternative is to not try to win immediately.

The thing is that you have to look for people in your price range. There are very few players who are salary-efficient who are under $1.5 mil so, unless you are willing to stay in the middle of the pack for many seasons to bank a lot of money, you do what you can and very often this means getting less than the best players. Unfortunately, I think the game engine rewards balanced players much more than having exceptional but one-dimensional players. I think it's a flaw in the game design which has encouraged the outrageous prices for a few players but we all live under the same rules.

I should add here that I think arguments could be made either way for the GS hit, depending on one's philosophy. It's just that, at least in the case of the IPBL and depending on how it's actually implemented, it will encourage teams to be mediocre for a few seasons to collect enough money to buy the better players. This may be a good thing as far as long term planning but I and perhaps some others in the league would prefer to try to win short term.