BuzzerBeater Forums

You haven't thought about more teams keeping their whole rosters to avoid demotion for example. Or teams just being forced to have better rosters the whole season.

I don't think you have been paying attention. You've got several D1 users from different nations saying that managers are just reducing payroll season after season and in one of the top nations (in terms of achievements) they have 10 managers at or around the salary floor, an unprecedented number.

You are also not considering that if the salary floor pushes people to buy more players then it also contributes to inflation as people try to save more. It has been said before in this thread.

Last edited by Lemonshine at 12/14/2016 6:12:01 PM

One more thing. Tanking is MOSTLY caused by training system. You are only allowed to train 3 players. Once you want them to be good you have to train them all the way from 18, you have to rotate them throughout whole roster during their life. It is impossible (especially nowadays) to buy suitable players that would fit in training program of your best trainee. So it ends up like that once your trainees are gone you need to re run it all the way and rotate others throught your roster. You cant be competitive for several seasons becose of it so tanking is not option it is must wheter it is huge tanking or just semi-tanking. So YOU BBs create conditions and force managers to tank strategy in periods. And at the same time you fight against it.
Do you guys have numbers how new trainings system when you can train OD at C works? Is it used at least by two managers per week?

Training system change was HUUGE in values (% penalties) while salary adjustments at JR,SB were almost none.

I am continually amazed that the BB's don't see/understand this exact point. Breaking the link between positions and training would eliminate 75-90% of the tanking that goes on around here. No more need for taxes on large bankrolls. No need for fan boycots to reduce income. One simple fix that would address so many problems.

Foto. If 10-12 teams are about at the same level AND if you offer promotion bonus for the guys demoting and promoting, I will take my chances and will try not to relegate while staying at the salary floor. If I demote it's not the end of the world as I would definitely make more money than going with a 600k salary team to make sure I don't demote.

Regarding the floor I think it will have some mild inflationary effect and inflation pushes people to lower their payrolls (which should have a mild deflationary effect), so in the end it will not increase competition the way you think nor reduce the average income the way you think. Or better, you may increase competition but towards the bottom without affecting the economy in any meaningful way. The salary floor is not a measure to increase competition, but to drain cash from the economy (lower income) and in that respect it will likely fail as more managers converge towards the bottom and the average income stays the same.

And while you may say 'ok but when you shed salary you need to sell players' the other problem that the average player level is still decreasing. I think there is no end to this downwards spiral until you have more players available and people can afford better talent for less money (not to the lowest levels which we reached 12 seasons ago when I was buying injury replacements with 100k+ salary for 50k). I think it's a bit late to think about this though: even if you were to double the trainable players the new wave will only kick in in 6 seasons at the earliest. This has also been proven by the Utopia experiment where players have been trained but probably are not enough. We can check with NT scout in a couple of weeks how many Utopia players are getting regular minutes anywhere in BB and see if Utopia could be self sustaining with just Utopia players (which I don't think).

Last edited by Lemonshine at 12/15/2016 4:41:48 AM

At the moment i am not sure whats more disappointing, the S37 news or the lack of communication of the people responsible for them. EGM Foto is (aside from Manon in some niche topics) the only one available for discussion and both of them prefer to abandon certain topics once the weight of arguments tilts against the proposed changes.

I haven't abandoned any topic, I've explained my point of view in almost all of them and continue reading until I think I have something to write.
I am not sure about how to measure the weight of arguments you mention, since we have different conclusions with the same data. I've just seen some different opinions as respectable as mine, but my conclussions are not the same as the ones you have.
On the other hand, if one user's idea seems interesting, it's not a bad idea to let other users discuse it before any of us gives staff point of view.

In case you or Manon (283856.147) somehow misinterpreted the post you are quoting. i was mentioning you as a positive example and your contribution is highly appreciated.

We dont agree on the salary measure but thats acceptable, giving your opinion is fair enough (even though you did not provide an example to strengthen your point of view ;)
I was just not refering to this topic but various other left-open-discussions e.g. the one Gully Foyle quoted or the general economics one in the 25M thread.

Last edited by Robard at 12/15/2016 4:44:29 AM

I agree.

The fundamental problem BB has these days is the old and inflexible training system.
Once your manager pool declines and you restrict FA, you need to balance supply of new players by adjusting the training system which was not done. Tinkering on demand side is always limited. (ask the European Central Bank ;)
Your proposed action will not change much (please read (283856.120))

Once your economy shifts into inflation a cascade of side effects starts rolling:
1. Players will save more money to buy more players, hence average league salary drops, more money is injected into the economy every week, fuelling further inflation.
2. Because the average league income increases, the competitive advantage in terms of weekly income of new users declines as they face managers with large arenas and a cheap (close to salary floor) and competitive (as all teams are close to salary floor) team having the same monthly income as the new users have with their incompetitive crap teams.
The time new users need to level up is increased, so they leave and the shrink of users continues.
3. With shrinking average roster salary, the competitive situation in all leagues declines, particularly in the top league.
The championship bonus in home game revenue is now a much higher percentage of total salary than some seasons ago, making title defense much easier. Saving money for title runs has been discouraged. Most teams in top leagues are salary-floor-tanking, few compete. (German Bundesliga has become incredibly boring)
4. The current training system encourages tanking (was mentioned here few posts up (283856.144))

A change in training has been proposed for years now (abundant and persistent e.g. by the late wolph) and yet nothing changed.

Last edited by Robard at 12/15/2016 4:40:12 AM

1. You did add some salary on LI guards, some more on high TSP but to balance it out i appears that A skills got slightly cheaper.
Since the number of players with a raise is probably smaller than the number of players with a decrease, i think Gully Foyle means that the average salary by player decreased (or in other words, the sum of total salary for all players).

2. So the draft change increases the average TSP, not the potential?
So we can expect almost all players to have 5 skill balls in this seasons scouting? (you did not change that after the 19 yo were improved)
To be honest, i would vastly prefer a training system that could cap a drafted 45 TSP MVP within reasonable time than the current system with a uniform 60 TSP for all 18 yo and 70 TSP for all 19 yo draftees (just an exaggeration).

3. I am aware that this was a bit harsh thats why the next sentence after the part you quoted qualified my comment.