BuzzerBeater Forums

6. I feel like this update has a lot of content, almost like several seasons packed into one.
It's a bit much to take in.
Why is it so much bigger than I expected?
A: Moving the site to a new, much faster server freed up some time from maintenance and server performance caused bugs to shift the focus on other things. AI improvements also had a big role. I can't promise it's going to continue like that though, as you can see, BB can be very unpredictable.

(2026/8/8 Edit)
7. We know that the game engine has multiple "special lineups", one of which is the Rebounding lineup. (311301.16)
Does the Rebounding lineup take the players' energy levels into account?
I don't want the coach to put players with worse actual rebounding performance on the court at crucial moments.
A: The amount of stamina effects is not very strong (yet!), but it wasn't taken into account for rebounding lineups up to today, so I've added it now. Let me know if there's bugs in todays scrimmages so we can fix it before Saturday.

Aries [forum]
Informing and wanting to know your thoughts about several areas in "man to man vs 3-2 zone" topic

In real life basketball around 70-80 of inside shots are defended by bigmen. Of course they play differently than bb, cause they use less zones and more tactics like drop coverage, switching, doubling and so on. Do bb bigs in man to man defend similar percentage of inside shots? I do think 3-2 should have more inside shots defended by bigs than man to man, but man to man should still reach atleast 70 percent. It is one of reasons why 3-2 is so reliable - bigs defend post
A: Don't think so, but it would need further analysis. GE is complicated.

Another aspect in regards to man to man is if OD is "nerfed" on bigs, then there appears exploit where opponents can sometimes put their shooter at c/pf on offense and abuse bigs. Sort of like how reverse patient was. Man to man would remain inferior to 3-2. Fix coud be to add tactical option of switching on defense not just based on positions, but also on opponents players
A: This is all very speculative. Can't comment for such cases.

Rebounding now depends on energy. Does that mean that young trainees who have to play 48 min will also lose out on this? That just makes training even more difficult. Are there any plans to lower minutes requirement to 36, so that managers can stop putting players for 48 min in a game?
A: Very young players (18 and 19 yolds) already have a smaller necessary weekly minutes window, 44 minutes. That is a big bonus already. Also, the game does not support nor advise playing any player for 48 minutes per game. If you try to do so continuosly and fail, it's up to you and your choice alone.

tough [forum]

Quote:
Shot blocking being too strong in combination of 3-2 zone could have been solved rather easy by just finding way how to make shot blocking on jump shots less effective & "bigs" breaking 3-2 zone with ability to shoot easier than in past.

If you want realism, having modern basketball would mean that centers and especially every PF can shoot 32-38% for 3 on high volumen. Against modern 3-2 zone, teams just switch to 4-1 offense and by default one of bigs gets wide open, or elite passers break zone with interior pass through zone.


Last edited by BB-Marin at 8/13/2026 10:09:12 AM

Tough: I actually agree with this sentiment strongly, this leads to a question I want to lead with BB-Marin on this front:

I'm aware that you tinkered with the formula and do not plan to visit much more salary recalculations for a little bit, but if you are not intending to enforce stricter costs on OD skill (because we have yet to see the effect of 3-2 nerf, as it is still in testing phase) , is there:
A ) Discussions discussing the impact of 20 + X Skill in the game (legendary +5, so 25, 24,23, etc.) It was said before that 20 vs. 22 isn't much of a difference, but if that was the case, how come I see numerous upon numerous 22+ skill in IS and OD on the TL? Obviously there is value in there for Top level League 1/B3 teams and their respective NTs. I'm not saying kill these players entirely, but there should be drawbacks and "penalties" for going each skill beyond 20, because today it is rather simple to go and make a level 23 (skill) player. (say, light penalty for 21, and progressively grows the further away from 20 you go to 25, 26, etc.)

B )Discussions in the 3-2 Zone Nerf to fundamentally involve "PF" more on offense. so far the archtype isn't value much on the TL, as you have players like this guy
(51024208)
who should be dominating the game from PF slot. Right now if you plug that build as PF against 3/2 zone he's facing guards for jumpers and bigs for interior defense. There should be a way that a very skilled PF "breaks" the 3-2 just like the OP suggested in the quote.
A: There is a lot of statements in here and my time is limited, so I will just try to focus on the obvious questions A) and, which is no, we are not discussing it, for both.


Last edited by BB-Marin at 8/13/2026 10:11:54 AM

Hoarding Tax Q&A:

陈硕良 [forum]

I support the goal of shortening team cycles and encouraging asset circulation. In the long run, a higher asset holding tax can help reduce excessive asset accumulation and keep the economy moving.

My concern is the speed of the change rather than the direction. Increasing the tax rate from 10% to 20% while lowering the threshold from 25M to 15M in a single season is a very significant adjustment. Such a large change is likely to cause a major repricing of player assets rather than a gradual transition.

In the short term, the announcement itself may create a rush of market activity, as many managers will try to adjust their assets before the higher tax takes effect. This could create temporary inflationary pressure and distort player prices. After the new system is introduced, however, the increased holding cost and reduced purchasing power may lead to a significant downward adjustment in player valuations.

The main concern is that this transition may create a market shock rather than a natural adjustment. Managers may be forced to make similar decisions at the same time, causing unusual supply and demand pressure in the transfer market. The resulting price movements may be driven more by the timing of the policy change than by normal market dynamics.

Another possible consequence is the impact on training investment. With the tax threshold reduced from 25M to 15M, many players who previously had no holding tax burden may see their market value adjusted downward due to the increased cost of ownership. However, training costs would remain unchanged, which could reduce the return on investment for training-focused teams. Reviewing training costs in the future may be necessary to maintain a healthy balance between player development and the new asset taxation system.

For these reasons, I would suggest considering a more gradual implementation. As an illustrative example only, the tax rate could move from 10% to 13%, then 16%, and finally 20% over several seasons, while the threshold could also be reduced gradually from 25M to 15M. The exact figures are not important, but a phased approach would allow the market to adapt more naturally while still achieving the goal of shortening team cycles.

I support the objective of the policy, but I believe a slower transition would produce a healthier and more stable outcome for the game economy.

tunjevina [forum]
As someone who, until a few weeks ago, thought the hoarding tax already started at $15m, I fully support this change.

BB has always been a long-running game, but when I started in Season 15, you could reach the top level in half of the time it takes now.

Making money in BB was much, much easier for new managers. With no minimum salaries and no boycott, you had the option to tank whenever your wallet needed a boost. In Div I, tanking could get you $700k+ per week, or $10m+ in a season. It was also easier to make money through training, because to train a quality player who isn't falling behind the players on the TL, you didn't need to spend money on a gym, youth coach, or training field. You could also day-trade if you wanted to. All of this meant that new managers could catch up financially to the ones at the top faster.

But too many managers were tanking every season, making the competition less fun. So I supported many of the restrictions that were implemented and thought they were necessary. However, they also made the game much slower for new managers, while those of us who started earlier got to profit from BB's Wild West era.

I see no reason for anyone to have more than $15m in their budget. This should be a basketball manager first, not a financial simulator where the winner is decided among the 4-5 richest teams.

It seems to me that reducing the maximum budget would level the playing field a bit, allow newer managers to catch up with us older ones faster, and ultimately make the competition more i

tunjevina [forum] continued

That being said, I understand the concern about implementing this change within a single-season. If the number of users with $10m+ is around 1200, as Alonso said, and at least 200-300 users have $15m+, that would mean those managers would have to spend around $1B in total this season. And if we assume that most of them already have all the necessary infrastructure considering how rich they are, a large portion of that $1B would have to be injected into the TL.

The managers who would be hit hardest are those who dropped to the lowest divisions and aren't able to be active this season due to other commitments. They would effectively be forced to become active this particular season or risk losing up to $10m. Furthermore, spending $5-10m in a single season in a lower division is simply far too much.

I think managers should be given 3 seasons to gradually reduce their budgets from $25m to $15m. That should give everyone enough time to adjust, and reduce the risk of creating a sudden large injection of money into the TL.

For example:
Season 74: 25m -> 22m
Season 75: 22m -> 19m
Season 76: 19m -> 15m

Misagh[forum]
It’s interesting to me that most users seem to support reducing the cash reserve cap from $25M to $15M. For teams competing at the Division 2 or Division 3 level, you generally don’t need that much money. But if you want to reach the top level, you absolutely need that kind of financial reserve.

Most B3 teams compete with 7- or 8-man rotations. Considering the developers’ apparent desire to encourage teams to use more players, even $25M is a relatively small amount of money.

The policies being implemented simply don’t seem to align with the direction and goals the developers themselves have stated for the game.

Fanega [forum]
I couldn't agree more with the previous posts. This major change is going to have a snowball effect throughout BB, including causing managers to leave the game. A more gradual implementation, as many have suggested, should be seriously considered.

js8[forum]
Again, I think this change is actually positive, but the way it's being implemented is not, with no notice period of this happening. This is going to have a serious effect on the market, causing inflation due to managers wanting to get rid of the surplus cash they'll be taxed on.

bryce_gibbs[forum]
Yes something is coming, but no one could predict something so crazy could happen.

The game is supposed to be played in good faith, there is no other reason to make such a rapid reduction to $15m other than to screw over managers with higher balances. The most worrying thing is when they were discussing the implementation of these changes and the effects it would have, they would have weighed up doing it over 1-5 seasons, so by choosing one season and a 20% penalty, the only conclusion we can draw is that it was their goal to inflict maximum damage.

When the game was on its last legs and the servers weren't loading, when the website kept crashing, it was these managers that kept paying for supporter and Utopia with no guarantees of the future, now they get F'd over intentionally.

CoachQ[forum]
I think you are missing the point, just like the decisions makers did.

There would be a lot to say about why the game is being played the way it is today and I do understand the logic to try and tweak it, here and there, to make it more accessible, more dynamic, etc. But i will go straight to the point:

How on earth can one possibly believe that this 25 to 15M and 20% tax, implemented from the very next season, would be a good idea at all?? This is appalling. As read in many messages above, ambitious managers are planning their roster and financial strategies 2 years ahead - sometimes more! that's 8-10 seasons ahead!

Everyone plays the game fair and square, everyone tries to find the right strategy, and attempting to be successful at the highest level requires times, planning, scouting, training; it often includes twists, setbacks, it demands patience - a loooot of it.

Implementing this rule in 3 months would kill years of efforts for hundreds of managers instantly, it would - literally - completely change the game as soon as today! I think it would be a total lack of respect toward managers who are playing this game seriously if this is implemented from next season. Those managers didn't steal anything from anybody and would be all of a sudden penalised.

This change must be implemented smoothly, slowly, with thresholds, giving managers to adjust. In my humble opinion, rushing into this would be, by far, the worst decision in the history of this game and would clearly demotivate many talented managers who, again, have been patiently preparing for years and would feel robbed.

Fanega[forum]
Yeah, absolutely. I am one of them, with both teams and I will adjust and do my best, but likely I will close the door after this project. I have been calculating, waiting for my time and suddenly I have to replan and change it all. As u say, its been a slap in my face and due to time invested I will end this cycle, but after that, bye bye

Finally, my answer to the hoarding tax questions and statements:

A: Hoarding tax, as it was up to now had little or no effect on discouraging tanking, a long term strategy that kills the competitiveness and is very obviously counter to the whole spirit of the sport, not to mention how it's ruining the fun for everyone else involved. This tax was way too low for way too long, and a sharp cut was needed: we will no longer tolerate such strategies within the game. You might disagree on the timeline, and I understand the sentiment, but what you are are mostly proposing is giving the teams that use a very unsportsmanlike strategy more time to spend their money on what we deem very undesirable. Why would we want to reward such behavior? It is better to try and force these teams back to regular competitiveness as fast as possible, and be done with such nonsense once and for all. Yes, this means that we will consider making the tax even stricter, since 15M is still a lot of money.

And yes, there are teams that dropped divisions to do this, but we never said we we're going to support this, on the contrary, it was counter to to what we were saying since hoarding tax was implemented. To say that this is a welcome, but to rash a decision is a very contradictory: do you want the game to be better or not? Do you want it to get better as fast as possible or not? Should we allow for unsportsmanlike behavior or not? In my view, it should have been implemented a long time ago, best second best time is now.

On the concerns on the effects on the transfer market, do not worry, there is lots of room for the prices to grow, we want them higher, they incentivize training and scouting. I'm more worried what happens if they go down after this season, but that could be fixed by a even stricter hoarding tax in the future. We will continue to monitor and adapt.

In the meantime, a full season is a lot of time for a small number (yes, we are talking about a small percentage) of teams to spend their extra money, so it will not balloon the market overnight nor will it upend the BB economy negatively. This is also lots of time for managers to switch out from what they thought was a painful, but necessary strategy, and to them I say this: No longer will you need to give up competitiveness for long periods of time, just for a chance at glory. You can adapt and you can return, and you will enjoy the game a lot more doing it!

Last edited by BB-Marin at 8/13/2026 10:22:49 AM

I think there is a fundamental contradiction here, and it has very little to do with BuzzerBeater specifically. This is basic economics.

You are trying to achieve two things at the same time:

Reduce the amount of cash managers are able to hold, potentially moving the effective ceiling from $25M to $15M and perhaps even lower in the future.
Keep transfer-market prices high, or even push them higher.

In the short term, both can happen at once. In the long term, however, they naturally work against each other.

The basic framework is the quantity equation:

M × V = P × Q

Where:

M = money supply
V = velocity of money
P = price level
Q = quantity of goods/transactions

When the hoarding threshold is suddenly reduced, you can temporarily increase V dramatically. Managers who were holding $20M, $25M or $30M now have a strong incentive to spend that money quickly before it is taxed.

That can absolutely create short-term inflation in the Transfer List.

In other words, money that was previously sitting inactive in bank accounts suddenly starts chasing players.

So I completely understand the argument that prices may rise this season.

But that is a transition effect. It is not the long-term equilibrium.

After the excess cash has been spent, if the system continuously prevents managers from rebuilding large cash reserves, and increasingly removes money through taxation, then M falls.

Once the one-time increase in velocity has played out, you cannot keep increasing V forever to compensate for a continuously smaller money supply.

All else being equal:

lower M → lower aggregate purchasing power → downward pressure on P.

This is not a BuzzerBeater theory. This is one of the most basic relationships in monetary economics.

If tomorrow a real-world economy doubled its money supply while producing the same amount of goods, we would expect upward pressure on prices.

If you remove a large part of the available money from the economy while keeping the supply of goods broadly similar, the opposite pressure exists.

Obviously the relationship is not perfectly mechanical because velocity, supply, expectations and other variables matter. But you cannot continuously reduce purchasing power and simultaneously assume asset prices will remain structurally higher without another variable compensating for it.

There is also an important distinction between spending money and destroying money.

If I buy a player for $8M, most of that $8M does not disappear from the BB economy. It moves from the buyer to the seller. The transaction increases circulation, but it does not meaningfully reduce the total money supply except for transaction taxes or other sinks.

A hoarding tax is different. Money removed by the tax is actually destroyed.

Therefore a harsher hoarding tax can create two opposite effects at different times:

Short term: managers rush to spend → velocity rises → player prices can rise.

Long term: cash reserves are smaller and money is continuously removed → purchasing power falls → player prices face downward pressure.

This is why I find the statement that, if prices fall later, an even harsher hoarding tax could be the solution very difficult to reconcile economically.

It may create another temporary spending rush. But once that adjustment is complete, you have removed even more purchasing power from the system.

You cannot repeatedly solve a shortage of demand by further reducing the amount of money available to demand.

If the objective is simultaneously to have:

smaller cash reserves,
less tanking,
shorter team-building cycles,
larger/more competitive rosters,
and higher player prices,

then something else has to compensate.

For example, the game would need some combination of higher recurring revenues, lower non-player expenses, greater demand for players, reduced supply of high-quality players, more roster spots that are economically viable, or some othe

, or some other mechanism that increases effective purchasing power or demand.

Otherwise there is a mathematical limit to what managers can pay.

Imagine that under the old system ten competitive teams can collectively bring $200M of available purchasing power into a market segment.

If, after several seasons of tighter taxation and lower cash ceilings, those same teams can collectively bring only $120M, you cannot simply expect the same group of assets to become permanently more expensive unless something else has changed.

The money to pay those prices has to come from somewhere.

And this is why I think the short-term market reaction is being confused with the long-term economic effect.

Yes, forcing managers to spend their accumulated money can inflate the TL right now.

But after that accumulated stock of money is gone, permanently restricting the amount managers can accumulate is fundamentally deflationary unless another part of the economy offsets it.

So if the long-term goal is genuinely to make players more valuable and encourage training because selling players should generate higher returns, then I think the entire money-flow model has to be considered together.

You cannot look only at the hoarding tax.

Income creation, salaries, training costs, infrastructure costs, transfer taxes, cash ceilings, roster requirements and the supply of trained players are all parts of the same economy.

Changing one of the biggest variables in that system while expecting the opposite long-term price effect is not really a BuzzerBeater question.

It is Economics 101.

Drop the axe.

The more I read the arguments for postponement, the less sympathy I have for teams sitting on $25M+ in their banks. There will, theoretically, be a massive influx of cash into the market from teams that currently have more than $25M. Nobody should be surprised if that creates some short-term inflation in player prices on the TL.

But the spending won’t stop there. That money will eventually end up in the banks of other managers, who will themselves have an incentive to spend it ---- > most likely on the TL again. Over time, prices will stabilize under the new system.

And if some teams don't spend their money because they are inactive or hibernating, and instead lose it through taxation, I don't see how that negatively affects transfer prices. After the change, those teams will eventually drop down to $15M, which is effectively just as relevant to the market as their $25M was before the change.

So I really don't see the need to postpone this any further. Let the system do what it's supposed to do.