BuzzerBeater Forums

Suggestions > Old players

Old players (thread closed)

Set priority
Show messages by
This Post:
1212
272734.1
Date: 8/8/2015 11:58:01 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
761761
Look, there are some really old players on this game. I'm talking 50+. I'm talking 60+. Some people think that they should be removed from the game when they reach a certain age. However, I like the idea of keeping these players in the game at such an old age. It makes BB unique. Like, how awesome is it that you can have a 62 year old on your team? (717068). That's brilliant really.

What I don't like is that these players don't actually help your team in any way. One of the problems with this is the lack of salary discrepancy going on here. Let's take two players on my team for example.

Here's Vittorio Blotto (35112688). Solid player. Well rounded. Can contribute. Could probably win MVP in a D5 league.

Now here's Eugene Bollinger (717445). Very dusty. His hair's uneven. Couldn't even beat an elephant with 3 legs and no tusk one on one. Could not contribute to any team ever in the history of BB.

The difference in salary between a decent player and a piece of trash is about 5k. That's it. Just 5k. No one has ever said no to a player because it would force them to pay an extra 5k per week. Hell, you get 50k for winning a cup game. That would be 10 weeks of owning Blotto instead of Bollinger. Everyone would take that deal.

Bollinger has essentially no purpose on BB aside from being a guy that you keep on your team so you can laugh at how bad he is. If we're going to keep these kind of players on BB (which we should), they should serve more of a purpose than that. They should actually be able to contribute to your team.

And quite frankly, there should be a much bigger difference in salary between these two players. And no, that does not mean that Blotto should make more money. 5k is a perfectly suitable salary for him. Anything more would mess up the economy.

What I'm saying is that Bollinger's salary should be able to hit 0. It should be able to go negative. He should be paying you to keep him on your team. He should be thanking you for allowing him to be on your roster despite not being able to guard a one eyed alcoholic koala with a cocaine addiction. He should be thanking you for the customized wheelchair you allow him to sit in to watch games since the bench gives him back problems. That's just how it is.

I propose to you something like this: http://imgur.com/LXZFMpN

Imagine how much the game would open up. So many new strategies to get to the top, so many possibilities. Just think of all the things you could do with the money he pays you! You could buy a trainee, you could buy a national team player, you could even buy another player that pays you money!

Like, could you imagine if the reason why KK Mordor 3-peated on BB this season is because he bought a player that pays him 30k per week, which opened up enough space for him to buy another national team player? That would be insane. But it should all be possible. It actually gives these old players a reason to be on your team.

Just think about Bollinger. He's out here living the dream playing basketball for a living, even though if I had to pick between him and a drunk lamp post with ADHD to give me 36 minutes in the finals right now, I'd probably choose the latter. There is absolutely no way I should have to pay him my own money to allow him to live the dream playing basketball.

Here's a graph that really puts things into perspective: http://imgur.com/9SAnTBj

Does this seem fair? If your name is Eugene Bollinger, sure, maybe it does. If you are literally any of the other 7 billion people on this planet, you may realize that something is up. Bollinger should not be making more money than any of these legends. He shouldn't even be making the same amount of money as these legends. It's only fair that his salary goes negative.

So I propose to you that we allow salaries to go negative.

This Post:
33
272734.2 in reply to 272734.1
Date: 8/9/2015 12:31:10 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
504504
This Post:
00
272734.4 in reply to 272734.3
Date: 8/9/2015 12:26:10 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
761761
But this would cut off a wonderful group of opportunities for the game to expand. Could you imagine getting into a bidding war for a 90 year old player that pays you 100k weekly? And then getting into a bid war for a level 7 doctor just so this player doesn't die of heart disease? Imagine how many more new users would stick around.

Let's take an average new user for example. Okay he signs up for BB. Awesome. Cool. Nothing exciting has happened yet. But wait, trust me, something exciting will happen. Just be patient. Then he sees that it is recommended to look at the game manual. Alright that's nice. But that's not the exciting part in case you haven't noticed. Then he reads "After a player's skills drop below a certain level, he will begin paying you salary just because you kept him on your team" http://24.media.tumblr.com/0e6c7b3a58f1c81737ff16c4d19bec... WHAT IN THE WORLD MY GOODNESS THAT IS CRAZY. His reaction from reading that would probably go from something like this http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_leutggyfu01qf8yek.gif to http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_leftlcc6W71qf8yek.gif and bam, a future B3 winner is born, all because he was intrigued by this new change to BB.

So many great things could come out of this change. It has to be done.

This Post:
22
272734.5 in reply to 272734.4
Date: 8/9/2015 12:30:54 PM
ENSTABOOM
III.15
Overall Posts Rated:
9393
yeah right, and the new to buzzerbeater will quit just on seeing this thinking it is utterly nonsense...
The old players are fine as they are : cheap subs for GS and pride in keeping them. there are other stuff going on which are tremendously more interesting !

This Post:
00
272734.6 in reply to 272734.1
Date: 8/9/2015 12:45:00 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
7373
So I propose to you that we allow salaries to go negative.


The problem with that is you could have a team of 100 players that pay you 20k a week and make 2 million a week. Negative salaries would cause teams to make an infinite amount of income every week because there is no limit on how many players a team can have.

This Post:
00
272734.7 in reply to 272734.1
Date: 8/9/2015 1:51:11 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
197197
Dunno, man, MJ is currently 50+ and he probably still makes more money in one week with the shoes nike sells with his name than you and me will make in our entire lives.

+ he still can dunk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptzdaPJU4ZU

This Post:
00
272734.8 in reply to 272734.5
Date: 8/9/2015 1:53:27 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
761761
Maybe some see it as nonsense but if something like this turns them off enough to make them leave, then were they really going to stay in the first place? I see low risk high reward here.

This Post:
00
272734.9 in reply to 272734.6
Date: 8/9/2015 1:58:22 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
761761
That is a fair point, but there's something that I forgot to mention in the original post that will help clarify this. As we know, old people are much more injury prone than people in their 20's. We should make these contracts function so that if the old guy is injured, he will not pay any salary towards you. And injuries will be very common, something that can happen even if they don't play in a single game. Here's an example http://imgur.com/RnUbGKS

Notice how the injury lasts for 8 weeks. That means that for these 8 weeks, you are getting absolutely nothing out of him. Probably even considering selling him. It's just another realistic aspect to add to this system.

And another important note is that it would be very difficult to buy 100 of these players. There would be too much demand in the transfer list for them. No one has that kind of money, and no one will even if they are getting paid weekly.

This Post:
00
272734.10 in reply to 272734.7
Date: 8/9/2015 2:01:25 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
761761
This is completely true! However, endorsements are not being considered in the graph I displayed earlier.

This Post:
00
272734.11 in reply to 272734.10
Date: 8/9/2015 3:12:00 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
926926
moflaffle I think you are probably the smartest person I've met.