BuzzerBeater Forums

It's not the TIE agreement that's the problem. It's breaking the TIE agreement to get an edge. Though the simple solution would be to ignore mutual TIE requests.

It would make sense to make a rule that says "a team cannot buy a player with salary of 2xTV money".

Good rule, it would also help eliminate all the bankruptcies that happen because new managers don't understand the economy of a huge salary.

That said, are the lower division teams really buying these players with huge salaries or are they training them from the ground up? I would guess that in almost every case it's the latter so permitting them from buying huge salaried players problem won't eliminate the exact problem you're intending it too.

Of course it's possible to train a 250k player from ground up. But a low division team that trained a monster will either sell it or go bankrupt. In neither case a low division team will be able to buy that player.

So it will still be possible for low division teams to have high salaried players, but only trained ones. This would eliminate a lot of NT sabotaging and second accounts for purpose of buying domestic NT players.

GM-Perpete: When you see a D.V team that's been training U21 or NT players from their very beginning and never advancing to D.IV despite training exceptional players.... of course the team's manager could be one that left his original team and decided only to train players with his new team. I know it's hard to tell who cheats and who doesn't and that makes it only more frustrating.

Imagine there would be a sport drug that would be indiscoverable by drug tests. That's what's happening in BB right now.



Last edited by Koperboy at 8/12/2013 1:21:54 PM

I'm also against having NT players in D.IV and D.V. Although perfectly legal, one would think LeBron's or Durant's skills would probably regress if he played in China's D.IV. It would make sense to make a rule that says "a team cannot buy a player with salary of 2xTV money".

I don't like this suggestion. It wouldn't help anyway. You'd just have to buy the player before the new season and you could easily have a player with 200k in D.4. Because his salary is calculated in offseason, so he could have 130k in the old season but after the update he could have well over your suggested maximum.

I'm against punishing all the people because some cheat. There have to be other ways to stop cheaters.

NTs lose their best prospects all the time through free agency. It's just silly that NT-prospects are still being sold for less than 100k and fired after 1 or 2 games because their new owners would then have to pay their salary. Two things that should be changed:
- Make the new owners pay the salary the same minute they get the new players and
- if they cannot afford the salary just don't let them bid on the player.
This is the way it works e.g. in Hattrick.

- if they cannot afford the salary just don't let them bid on the player.

Well Koperboy suggestion tackles that. What do you mean by "they can't afford the salary" ? They have less in bank than a salary week of the player ? In what way it's better to refuse the transfer for those teams than for those that can afford barely a week ? You don't need twice your TV revenue on one player either way.

Exactly: if they don't have enough money for the actual bid+ 1 week of salary don't let them bid. Won't stop everybody but a lot of silly transfers. Just make everybody pay the salary the moment the player is transferred.

How come you can tell me what players I need or don't need? Maybe all I needed to promote would be a 300k-C for 2 weeks. Why shouldn't I be allowed to buy him for some weeks if I can aford him?

How come you can tell me what players I need or don't need? Maybe all I needed to promote would be a 300k-C for 2 weeks. Why shouldn't I be allowed to buy him for some weeks if I can aford him?

You're in D2 so you likely wouldn't be stopped from buying a $300K player (or close to it) with Koperboy's suggestion so I have no clue why you're complaining? It's the players in the lower divisions who wrongly think this type of purchase is needed and backrupt their teams in the process that a rule like this would target.

And sorry but if a handful of owners can't buy the 300K player they think they need and have to settle for a 200K player instead but we keep 100 owners in lower divisions from bankrupting their team in the process, a rule like this absolutely serves the greater good of the game. It should have been put in several seasons ago really.