BuzzerBeater Forums

Weekly, during the weekly economic update. It's when your account manager tells you to do something about it or he'll start listing your top earner to balance the books. This will cover scenarios where teams load up near the max, then season updates happen and their trainees push them over.

It will also need to be checked during bids on the transfer list if the new player's salary will push the team too much in the red. If it does, the bid cannot be made.

This is just off the top of my head, I'm sure there might be more scenarios to cover.

I have one problem with this idea. Revenue could be very different in different weeks due to difference of attendance income and merchandise. So one week you can be ok whilst the other not.

It's just a rough idea, plenty of edges to sand off.

This fluctuation is expected and I was also thinking along the same lines on how to get around economic cash fluctuation. A two tier cap instead of one. The first softer cap (Maybe from -100 to -300k) will render you unable to purchase newer players. The second harder cap (maybe at -600k) is when your BB Accounts Manager steps in. The difference between the first and second cap should be sufficient to cater for any fluctuations in economy.

Exceptions. There will be one week during the normal season where some teams might not have a home game. In this event, the previous week's attendance revenue (Accountants like to go by hard, relevant data) will be used to determine if the club is operating too much in the red.

I have one issue on this idea. For B3 purpose it could mean higher salary cap for team from big countries due to TV contract, otherwise in big countries teams can have more trouble with attendance income. So I prefer more salary cap than your idea. Salary cap could be set different for different league levels but the same all around the world. Your idea finally is kind of floating salary cap, but I think too complicated to understand for many users and also much complicated to implement.
I think any idea how the solve the problem should be as simple as possible.

If the BBs went for the salary cap, I'd be happy.
The B3, as things go now, might be redundant in the future. We should all just compare bank accounts and give it to the person who wants to spend the most.

I think salary cap is the answer (and I think BB will implement it sooner or later) but it should be done without luxury taxes or fines if you go over salary cap. You can have roster with salaries over 2M, you can go minus 1M every week but system should forbid to place line up if sum of players' salaries is let's over 1,4 M, that way rich teams can splash their money as much as they want but they have to choose (or to buy if necessary) certain players from their roster to fit in salary cap for certain game. This solution would also let people to train and keep high potential salary monsters if people like to do that (but maybe they not always can play them).

What way would it be designed? If you set lineup over the cap your game would be forfeit? Because for me it looks little bit complicated not to allow to set lineup over the cap. I can imagine check at the moment of sending orders, but how about default lineup which is under the cap before salary update but over the cap after salary update.

Last edited by rwystyrk at 5/14/2011 5:55:32 AM

Lets just all go for it with whatever resources we bring to the party.... nothing more nothing less....

I am only surprised that I was able to sneak in my victory with a bunch of 23yo's....

Looking back.. the bb mails and chat room banter we shared I even remember BB's using the phrase "Arms Race"...... this I think set the precedence...... it's the biggest trophy (to everyone apart from those that want to be in it but can't be) and to win it you have to give everything... there will always be that person willing to give everything..... and with so many capable managers and 3 seasons to 1 actual year..... if you want to get your name chalked up on the winners board before you die or get bored, you gotta do what you gotta do!!

The same as system tells you that the player is injured or can't play in playoffs, the system can tell you that one or two players let's by priority with highest salary is over the salary cap and if you submit with that player he won't play the same as you will submit injured player.

Last edited by profit007 at 5/14/2011 6:06:58 AM

Ahh, I misunderstood your idea first. But in this way it's definitelly salary cap, because it would be really uneffective to be over the cap as you can use your player with highest salary. Firstly I think of your idea as managers could choose every game set of player which is below the cap, but that would be litlle bit more complicated for implementation.

Well, it's nice to see BB-Charles talking about how this is not a problem at the moment. I guess we have seen that statement many times before and later BBs suddenly appear with a change damaging some long-time planners, in this case, probably the "saving teams" are the one's who is going to be mad for the time BBs realized this is a problem. Like with big stadiums, economy inflation, monster players being bought for two days, and the tiny solutions they have started to implement about high end players salary. Managers do know more stuff that BBs becuase we are the ones playing the game, sometimes BBs knows more because, well, they design the GE and have more data.

So I guess we'll have to wait a few seasons where savings teams will become B3 champios and later BBs may say "we have a situation here".

---

In advance for that moment, we can still discuss this. How about a mixed cap? I'm thinking of a soft cap that when reached, a incremental luxury tax becomes active. So this will give managerial space to adapt to change in salary due training or some regulating weeks where you might be selling a injured player while buying a healthy one with the only cost of having to pay an extra(in the form of the tax) for that period. And later a hard cap kicks where you just can't not use your more talented(costly) player which is probably going to be cause you surpass the hard cap. If is surpassed by your two most costly players, then those two players could not be used and so on.

This will help us to define a hard cap so B3 would not become a competition of savings but of basketball. This also, would implement a short-term vs long-term decision in of the form of how, when to and by how much time are you going to use space that the soft caps gives you. So you will do have to prepare for B3 and probably have to arrange a time where you would have to spend more money than when playing local competition but you will be prevanted from buying the tournament due the hard cap that kicks in at a certain moment.

The caps could be adjusted in a dynamic fashion, just like salaries, based on world income. So if some reason, like new features affecting revenue, the caps would be adjusted accordingly.

Last edited by Zero, the Magi. at 5/15/2011 2:49:18 PM