BuzzerBeater Forums

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

OK, then we completely agree, and for the record, I wasn't directing that post towards you at all, as you were paraphrasing the BBs in the first place. I totally understand the value of building balanced players - my trainees are all fairly experimental forwards with very balanced builds - but I definitely agree regarding the worth of monoskilled players.

Last edited by RiseandFire at 12/9/2010 7:31:02 AM

But someone is still weekly paying his salary? So basically nothing actually changes, only the top teams can not use them and not pay salary. That's the point. The fact you guys are missing is BB is still young. When the first bunch of trainees hit 35 that's when we can see what the player base lookes like. The economy will fine tune itself during seasons. If we would cut the salarys to half right away then we would have excess funds lying around again. So be patiant and drift clear of the unbalanced players. Training just one skill with a lvl7 trainer could get that salary pretty high and he outperforms a lot of players on the court with that ludacris IS or JS. It's all about the salary/skill tradeoff.
You can create an imbalance in any system if you stubbornly go for the unintended maximum.

So nobody can use them! And because they are on NTs, teams can't retire them, so they're affecting at least one poor team every week - and the effect is made worse by the payment of weekly salary upon purchase.

The fact that a player, at his best, is a burden points at a design flaw in BB. The game has gone on long enough to make this abundantly clear. Skills are supposed to be capped by potential - not the inability to pay a great player's salary.

Either set a cap on player salary, or lower the skill caps of great players. You're presenting the circular argument that we should work with the status quo because it is the status quo.