BuzzerBeater Forums

Wow, atlast the person who actually understood idea. I was seriously thinking of quiting bb forums forever because everyone seemed to be bots.

And tanking is whole another problem, it may be solved by adding higher salary floor, or making some changes at atendance calculator. the second one i would prefer, but its very complicated, so salary floor would do well in my eyes.



Last edited by Gajus Julijus Cezaris at 1/28/2014 3:01:43 PM

The problem is that AT SOME POINT players salary becomes uneconomical, unsustainable. And this makes player to be worthless. Higher payroll available would RISE THE SALARY WAY UP TILL PLAYER BECOMES UNSUSTAINABLE. For example at the moment no or very few serious teams buy 200+k salary guys even if they are rly great, also very good secondaries etc, but salary is just too high. With this update it would make 350+k salary guys unsustainable. So we would get that anything up to like 300-350k is a great player and worth alot. this update would make guys in 200-300k range valuable. And if high salary floor of like 800k roughl 60 percent of max salary affordable guys wouldnt count cents, there would be no benefit playing with 50k salary sf's like its now they would just jack up with 170k salared ones

Incomes would rise, Player salaries till they capped would not. it would still be the max achievable salary of like 450k once per generation

Last edited by Gajus Julijus Cezaris at 1/28/2014 3:08:43 PM

Or they could decrease salaries by percentage, which is equivalent to increasing income. And much easier to implement, instead of tweaking arena incomes.

But I like the current economy, really, I don't want to change things...

indeed they could lower salaries too, would make the same effect.

i can see where you are coming from with your idea. You want to use the idea of inflation to make higher salaried players easier to acquire for teams. They are valued low, mainly because their salary is so high.
eg: $200k SG vs $100k SG. The cost-benefit is not there, so the $100k SG is worth more on the transfer market.

However the problem with increasing available funds, is that it will not solve the underlying problem. The underlying problem is that a $100k salary SG has more value on the market compared to the $200k salary. Increasing the available funds to people will not change the underlying value of the $100k salary player.

in fact, it will just make it worse, because those who have money to bid on this high value player, will now have MORE money to bid on that high value player. The high value players will start selling for even more than they do now!

People will also be able to afford to have high salaried players on their team as well, but the same problem still exists.... why would they have a $200k salary SG if they get nearly the same result from a $100k salary SG.
So I understand your solution and your logic, but it would not work sorry.

They could make salary increase lineary not exponentialy. Since now you pay tax squared cause of exponential salary and luxury tax...

They could make salary increase lineary not exponentialy. Since now you pay tax squared cause of exponential salary and luxury tax...

Or they could just leave things as they are. If people are training players that 99% of managers cannot afford because they're either sacrificing for the NT or just too foolish to act sensibly, that's not good reason to throw out the economy as it is. If anything, the best fix to the economy would just be eliminating U21 and NTs entirely, but of course there's enough of the user base that would revolt that it'll never happen. But for game design purposes, if you eliminate salary concerns then there's no point in even having an economy.

Certainly i agree that, being slugged $10k in salary just because your $150k salaried player recieves another full pop in JS or something like that - i agree that that, is a bit silly.

Maybe not linear though, maybe just, less exponential towards the top end.

Or they could just leave things as they are.

Smartest words here :)