BuzzerBeater Forums

I think the best option would be paying the first salary at signing. Or create a system which pays all the salarys of players staff that were with the team during last week (this way you would not have to pay the salary at signing). Perhaps even remember the signing fee at the next economic update (players signed last week have no salary at next economic update). Dunno which one of those is the easiest to implement.

Im not quite sure if salary payment will help, is possible that it will just send the price of player even more below.

Place the salary cap at $2.5million - the anticipated roster value you will need next season to win :D

1. I think being able to use funds from early bids mainly benefits those with friends in the game (in this case, countries) that they can ask to bid on one of their players so they can go bid on another player/staff. But I get Mod-CrazyEye's point too.

2. If you have to play the players salary at the outset or during the week, won't it just reduce the transfer bids by approximately their salary? Instead of paying 1.2 mil for Silvas, BK Tikums would probably have been able to get him for ~0.7 mil instead.

3. If this was the only thing done, this would only address it for BBB, and would just reduce the options available to those who want to make a run at the championship if they find themself in a rare situation to win.

4. I really like this idea, it reduces the 1 game rental players in all facets without limiting manager's options. And the justification to do that based on happens irl is that players need time to adjust to their new teams and settings. Makes things slightly more complicated, but I think in this case, it'd be worth it.

just my 2 cents.

Coupled with the current economy, this would make players like Silves simply useless, as he would bankrupt every team that owned him, or force that team to gut its roster just to cope with the first salary payment. The players wouldn't be worth $1 on the TL, except to new owners who don't know better - these new owners would be the only bidders, and would immediately go bankrupt.

This isn't a situation where a "quick fix" to salary payments will fix everything, as it makes BB's best players completely useless.

Obviously, the finances of the game's top-tier teams and players are in need of reconciliation. Quite simply, this part of the player market is in an unhealthy state.

Last edited by RiseandFire at 12/9/2010 3:28:34 AM

Coupled with the current economy, this would make players like Silves simply useless, as he would bankrupt every team that owned him, or force that team to gut its roster just to cope with the first salary payment. The players wouldn't be worth $1 on the TL, except to new owners who don't know better - these new owners would be the only bidders, and would immediately go bankrupt.

This isn't a situation where a "quick fix" to salary payments will fix everything, as it makes BB's best players completely useless.

Obviously, the finances of the game's top-tier teams and players are in need of reconciliation. Quite simply, this part of the player market is in an unhealthy state.

players like silves are crap and the player market is totally healthy, that's what the BBs believe, so 0% possibility of changes on these points.

While they are certainly crap as they are not salary-efficient, this important fact remains:

In a BB simulation containing high-salary but inefficient players like Silves, as well as the game's best salary-efficient players, the high-salary players will outperform the salary-efficient players.

BB is a simulation game, so one must adopt certain strategies to become the most successful player. However, BB is a basketball simulation, and basketball is very real. In basketball, the best players perform at the highest levels, to the point of statistical significance. BB has that part right. But in basketball, the players who deliver the best on-court performances are seen as the game's greatest commodities. In BB, they are seen as "crap."

A redefinition of "best" is impossible when basing the game on a sport that is real. Therefore, the notion that creating the best player possible is a poor strategy is completely counterintuitive.

Last edited by RiseandFire at 12/9/2010 5:17:34 AM

While they are certainly crap as they are not salary-efficient, this important fact remains:

In a BB simulation containing high-salary but inefficient players like Silves, as well as the game's best salary-efficient players, the high-salary players will outperform the salary-efficient players.

BB is a simulation game, so one must adopt certain strategies to become the most successful player. However, BB is a basketball simulation, and basketball is very real. In basketball, the best players perform at the highest levels, to the point of statistical significance. BB has that part right. But in basketball, the players who deliver the best on-court performances are seen as the game's greatest commodities. In BB, they are seen as "crap."

A redefinition of "best" is impossible when basing the game on a sport that is real. Therefore, the notion that creating the best player possible is a poor strategy is completely counterintuitive.

100% agreed.
Trying to be fair with the BBs, they actually say that we are supposed to build balanced players instead of monoskilled beasts. That's totally understandable.

What is nonsense is that a player A who has ID-IS-RB 15-15-15 and no secondaries be worth much more that a player B who is 20-20-20 and also no secondaries. OK, both of them are monoskilled and should be worth less than a multiskilled player, but when you compare only those 2 players, player A should be worth much more than player B. To consider Player B more valuable then Player A is counterintuive, illogical and bizarre.

Last edited by LA-Bernspin at 12/9/2010 7:16:30 AM