BuzzerBeater Forums

BB Global (English) > S34 Salary floor increase: Comedy or drama?

S34 Salary floor increase: Comedy or drama?

Set priority
Show messages by
This Post:
00
277256.110 in reply to 277256.109
Date: 2/24/2016 3:26:14 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
117117
It's the game itself - when eschewing playing the game at all for seasons at a time to build up money becomes or is even perceived to have become a top strategy, the game is screwed. 

It is a top strategy. As long as the system allows it, it will continue.

From: Mountaineer

To: RiP
This Post:
00
277256.111 in reply to 277256.101
Date: 2/24/2016 5:31:19 PM
Edson Rush
II.3
Overall Posts Rated:
262262
What if to reward salary efficient teams, teams below the salary floor were able to make back the money they lost by being under the salary floor through their playoff performance. ie lets say my team lost 200k from being under the floor. If I make the playoffs I'll get 25% of that money back. If I make the semis I'll get 50% and if I win the championship I get 100% of that money back. Since this systems may reward teams in noncompetitive leagues or smaller nations, the percentages a team receives back could be adjusted depending on the division their in and their nations size.

This Post:
00
277256.112 in reply to 277256.109
Date: 2/24/2016 7:05:25 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
370370
When you look at the whole, the tanking issue is a widespread concern affecting a lot of users
While we're on the topic of salary floor increase as a partial remedy to tanking ... let me ask, who are these "lot of users" you're talking about? Who is actually hurt by tanking, other than the tankers themselves? Is tanking a problem in and of itself or merely a symptom of a more deep-rooted problem? (Move this question and start a new thread for this if you feel it's necessary).
It's the game itself - when eschewing playing the game at all for seasons at a time to build up money becomes or is even perceived to have become a top strategy, the game is screwed.

Hmm ... "the game itself." Sorry, but that might be just a wee bit too vague and metaphysical to further constructive conversation. We could similarly condemn eschewing competing in the game at all for seasons at a time to build up trainees to sell for money, and say that training is bad for the game itself. We could pretty much apply that to anything -- daytrading is bad for "the game itself." Vulgar team names. Anything. That's all just opinion.

I'm looking for something a little more concrete. Here's my thinking -- suppose you and BB-Ryan have a point. What if the raise in the salary floor didn't hurt as many managers as badly as many first believed, as you and BB-Ryan argue. Then who did it help by supposedly countering tanking? Who is hurt by tanking? Any users at all, or it just doesn't fit your mental image of what you want for BB?

This Post:
00
277256.113 in reply to 277256.112
Date: 2/24/2016 8:30:43 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
32293229
When you look at the whole, the tanking issue is a widespread concern affecting a lot of users
While we're on the topic of salary floor increase as a partial remedy to tanking ... let me ask, who are these "lot of users" you're talking about? Who is actually hurt by tanking, other than the tankers themselves? Is tanking a problem in and of itself or merely a symptom of a more deep-rooted problem? (Move this question and start a new thread for this if you feel it's necessary).
It's the game itself - when eschewing playing the game at all for seasons at a time to build up money becomes or is even perceived to have become a top strategy, the game is screwed.

Hmm ... "the game itself." Sorry, but that might be just a wee bit too vague and metaphysical to further constructive conversation. We could similarly condemn eschewing competing in the game at all for seasons at a time to build up trainees to sell for money, and say that training is bad for the game itself. We could pretty much apply that to anything -- daytrading is bad for "the game itself." Vulgar team names. Anything. That's all just opinion.

I'm looking for something a little more concrete. Here's my thinking -- suppose you and BB-Ryan have a point. What if the raise in the salary floor didn't hurt as many managers as badly as many first believed, as you and BB-Ryan argue. Then who did it help by supposedly countering tanking? Who is hurt by tanking? Any users at all, or it just doesn't fit your mental image of what you want for BB?


Well, on the concept of "the good of the game" I figure that making the game better overall is and always should be the primary goal. But if that concept is too general, the teams being hurt by tanking are the teams who are playing the game as an actual management sim, who are attempting to progress through the game by competing to the best of their abilities as often as viable, rather than looking at the game as an exercise in collecting cash by either low salaries or high volume player trading (or, often both). It's exactly those teams that are negatively effected when a team promotes, collects cash for a year, and then promotes and spends those gains to buy a title and repeat the cycle again. Plus, of course, the people who have seen this and decided that they need to do the same to progress further are hurt because they stop experiencing this as a game and more of logging in to pass time while the long-term grind goes on.

From: lvess

This Post:
55
277256.114 in reply to 277256.102
Date: 2/24/2016 10:42:20 PM
Delaware 87ers
II.3
Overall Posts Rated:
308308
I don't see how increasing the salary floor hurts retention among new users and I think making the teams that are trying to stay lean more competitive with the teams trying to promote makes for a better game in general. This increase in the salary floor is too small to matter much though.

I joined the game just before last season and my only issue with the salary floor increase is it made me use the TL which is usually a frustrating experience.


What hurts retention among new users is how frustrating it is to upgrade your players from the automatically generated dreck comprising the roster of a new team. 99.9% of the initial roster is useless. The TL is expensive and frustrating. And training is difficult to figure out at first as well.

Frankly, if you want to do something to encourage new users to stick around for whatever benefits you see that accomplishing, forget the 18 yo all-star talent and give the TSP's of the randomly generated roster a 10-20% boost. Make so they can actually be a tiny bit competitive out of the box.

Finances don't impact whether a new user sticks around. If it's not fun, or seems overly complicated, they bail.

This Post:
33
277256.115 in reply to 277256.114
Date: 2/25/2016 1:43:21 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
2626
Thank you for the discussion to my matter and all the assistance. I am ready now to fight.

I will report after 16 weeks are over.

This Post:
00
277256.116 in reply to 277256.113
Date: 2/25/2016 1:56:21 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
16031603
Well, on the concept of "the good of the game" I figure that making the game better overall is and always should be the primary goal.


If thats the case and I strongly believe that from the BB side there is will to improve the game, now that Ryan is on board, there need to be specific solutions for specific situations.

A general haircut won't solve the tanking problem, which from my point of view is a non issue basically. What you gain is less than what you lose, the draft is no incentive to be bad and the narrative always was that demotion costs more than bottom feeding in a higher division. Now tanking is presented as the uber strategy, which is quite strange to understand...

"Making the game better overall" could have been done with many different changes, which of course, consume much more effort and time. Changing five arbitraty numbers (percentages DIV I-IV) is the quickest way to "solve" the problem, but in this case I think we are oversteering in the wrong direction once again.

Größter Knecht aller Zeiten aka His Excellency aka President for Life aka Field Marshal Al Hadji aka Lord of All the Beasts of the Earth and Fishes of the Seas aka aka Conqueror of the Buzzerbeater Empire in Europe in General and Austria in Particular
From: Knecht

This Post:
00
277256.118 in reply to 277256.117
Date: 2/25/2016 5:50:35 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
16031603
I have always found it a bit strange actually that a game that do want in a way to limit tanking has one of its biggest "awards"(cant find a better word now) from being the team with the least wins.
I feels as though that is pretty counter productive.


I don't think thats the most rewarding way to play the game and I haven't seen any evidence for it so far. We had one team that bought B3 success, but those times are long gone.

I think tanking has been a popular choice for managers that want to start over in a very carefree manner, maybe are a bit frustrated and try something different, build up the bankroll and get it going again at a later stage.

Größter Knecht aller Zeiten aka His Excellency aka President for Life aka Field Marshal Al Hadji aka Lord of All the Beasts of the Earth and Fishes of the Seas aka aka Conqueror of the Buzzerbeater Empire in Europe in General and Austria in Particular
This Post:
00
277256.119 in reply to 277256.114
Date: 2/25/2016 7:04:47 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
14901490
What hurts retention among new users is how frustrating it is to upgrade your players from the automatically generated dreck comprising the roster of a new team. 99.9% of the initial roster is useless. The TL is expensive and frustrating. And training is difficult to figure out at first as well.

Frankly, if you want to do something to encourage new users to stick around for whatever benefits you see that accomplishing, forget the 18 yo all-star talent and give the TSP's of the randomly generated roster a 10-20% boost. Make so they can actually be a tiny bit competitive out of the box.

Finances don't impact whether a new user sticks around. If it's not fun, or seems overly complicated, they bail.
I agree 100% with with this and I have repeated similar points over and over again in the last several seasons.

Last edited by Lemonshine at 2/25/2016 7:05:14 AM

This Post:
00
277256.120 in reply to 277256.118
Date: 2/25/2016 7:07:25 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
14901490
We had one team that bought B3 success, but those times are long gone.
Twice and he's not bot.


I think tanking has been a popular choice for managers that want to start over in a very carefree manner, maybe are a bit frustrated and try something different, build up the bankroll and get it going again at a later stage.
And now instead of turning a $4 million profit you make $3.5 million. Why should that bother people who want to start over? You're making less, but you're still making a LOT more money than everyone else.

Going down with a smaller roster but fighting should be rewarded compared to just giving up, setting lineups for the entire season and logging in one a month to prevent botification. If you don't want to have salaries closer to the league average and put up a semi-decent fight avoiding blowouts every game, then you make $30k a week less. Big deal.


Last edited by Lemonshine at 2/25/2016 7:14:02 AM

Advertisement