BuzzerBeater Forums

Let me just clear some things up a bit. We never said anything about 30% raises nor did we ever mention a direct TSP vs salary relation. I just don't want people to get the wrong idea like we did that.

So, it might help a bit to think of the announced changes like this; a small part of the salary weights that are calculated based on primaries will now be replaced by secondaries. This means that most players will actually have their salaries reduced, as their primaries are the highest skills. This is true both for forwards and guards. On average, since not many teams have rosters brim filled with individuals with incredible secondaries, most players will have their salaries reduced even some players do get higher salaries, so it will at least balance out. For most teams, it will probably even reduce their total salary spending.

In other words, we are not increasing salaries, we are just shuffling the skill weights in them, adding some, reducing others, to better reflect their true value. Even then, the change should never allow for a 30% salary increase.

According to your text , player's skills will predictable easily . The higher salary -> the higher skills ... and then we can predict the skills with salary similator

If you want to make your life easier, just release the damn formula(s). The old ones were already figured out and if you are only changing a few coefficients, it won't hurt to be open about it.

I am all for the change, but assume it might be a too small change anyways.

I was working on bigs to match up against LI, and I'm just hoping they'll still be useful without unwieldly salaries. The plan was well-rounded, high passing bigs, with lots of SB. By the sounds of it, the changes won't be as severe to force me to change my training plans, but it would be great to get a heads up before changes like this are put into place.

The current salary formula is known, so why would it hurt to release the small changes? Would help the guys who are raging now to calm down and adapt their plans.

It could also be descriptive, something like (just tossing random numbers around):
guards: -3% PA cost, -3% JR cost, -1% RB cost to be replaced by increased cost in IS and ID
forwards: -3% JR cost, +6% IS cost

I'm sure nobody and I mean nobody can seriously claim that $0 cost of IS on guards is sensible design and that 140TSP SF cost 40% less than 125 TSP PGs or Cs. In the real world is like LeBron James or Kevin Durant earning 40% less than Curry, Westbrook or Cousins. It makes no sense.

People like Sensiman and Alexandar should perhaps argue that the salary of multiskilled players shouldn't be higher than monoskilled so that building well rounded players still make sense, but claiming that the current opposite situation is fair, so that a 140 TSP SF having a 30%-40% lower salary than a 125 TSP C or PG is fair, makes no sense to me. Hakkinen got close to 160 TSP and he was far from being the most expensive player on the Finnish NT.

Marin has already clarified that there are not going to be massive changes, so it's hard to fathom how multiskilled players will become more expensive (in salary) than monoskilled ones. However making IS cost something, anything, for guards is kind of a necessary fix and so is making sure that SF don't have the huge salary advantage they currently have.

I'd like to add one thing although it might go a bit too far in terms of complexity. I think the salary increases are non-linear. So going from 6>7 in one skill does not cause the same increase in salary than 16>17. If the problem is that 'training' multiskilled players might become more expensive, just make sure that the salary increases become heavier than they are now after a certain level. This way you don't punish the managers that do most of the training work, but people enjoying the final product or a good intermediate product (after half of the training has already been done) will pay a salary more in line with the real value of the player.


Last edited by Lemonshine at 9/4/2016 11:53:50 AM