BuzzerBeater Forums

Well that would just extend the time it takes for me to be competitive. I am not hoarding money. I currently have less than 200k, so the only way for me to become immediately competitive would be to sell off my trainees which seems like kind of a waste.

Again, I think raising the salary floor is good for higher divisions, but I think it is already high enough for lower divisions.

Last edited by banana64 at 2/7/2016 6:19:19 PM

Well that would just extend the time it takes for me to be competitive. I am not hoarding money. I currently have less than 200k, so the only way for me to become immediately competitive would be to sell off my trainees which seems like kind of a waste. 

Again, I think raising the salary floor is good for higher divisions, but I think it is already high enough for lower divisions.

The problem with this is there is nothing stopping an established team in need of a rebuild purposely tanking their way to the lowest division to avoid a harsher cap. An established player in your league can potentially make around $200k every week, and an experienced manager could possibly even promote in such a league while staying around the floor.

They won't spend $140k pw on staff and scouting, plus they have maxed arenas so their income is pure profit. You would constantly get leapfrogged by managers who have extra funds to burn on the transfer market. The same idea that you think will cost you money would actually save you by teaching you to be more cost effective while giving established teams less incentive to tank.

As most of your post directed towards another user, applies to my situation too, I feel free to answer to this post.

Salary floor augmentation is not only to stop tanking, but to rise competition. As you say, if you are able to be highly ranked in your league is not because of the quality of your team, but lack of quality in your opponents.

I don't need to become more "competitive" as long as my fellow leaguemates are bots that I will destroy no matter what. I even can run a five man lineup with very bad gameshape and still produce good results.

You might not be tanking, but you are not being competitive either. You lost by 60 points your game against the team ranked #1 (you are #2) while putting more effort.

Makes no sense to force me to spend more money, if I want to dwell in mediocrity I should be able too. Or is treadmilling now frowned upon too?

If I don't want to play meaningful games I should not be forced to do so. Especially if it has nothing to do with tanking. If I had to spend according to your suggestion, I'd be in the same situation.

You would constantly get leapfrogged by managers who have extra funds to burn on the transfer market.

Raising the salary floor wouldn't change this situation and might make it worse though. Lets say me and another "experienced manger" are both below the salary floor. Say due to his lack of expenses and large arena he makes 200k a week while I make 60k a week. Raise the salary floor by 30k and he now makes 170k a week and I only make 30k. My profits would go down by 50% and his would only go down by 15%.

The salary floor is good, but raising it too much rewards the top teams by forcing the lower teams to play at a level they can't yet afford.

My profits would go down by 50% and his would only go down by 15%. 

Your profits get cut so significantly because you drastically overpay for staff. The salary floor has no impact on what you do with your income...

The salary floor is good, but raising it too much rewards the top teams by forcing the lower teams to play at a level they can't yet afford.

No. It takes money from everyone at that level equally. It means top teams in any given league have to promote to make more sustainable income, and lower teams learn to spend their money appropriately to be successful at their level.

No. It takes money from everyone at that level equally.

As I said earlier taking money from everyone equally does not mean each team is equally effected. Taking money from each team equally (through the salary floor) will have the greatest impact on those making the least money.

As I said earlier taking money from everyone equally does not mean each team is equally effected. Taking money from each team equally (through the salary floor) will have the greatest impact on those making the least money.

The salary floor takes from everyone in your league equally. You have the same earning potential as your competition. What you spend your income on above that is what makes you feel like you will be victimized. A rule that would take money out of the game and lower inflation isn't responsible for poor financial decisions.

You have the same earning potential as your competition.

Not really. More experienced teams with larger arenas can make more money. You yourself said this :

An established player in your league can potentially make around $200k every week

I am not saying I am being victimized. I know that the strategy of trying to build a great team through drafting and training means I will make less income and I am perfectly fine with the way things are.

I do think that if they raise the salary floor , they should count trainers salary towards the salary floor since it encourages training and I think it will help keep users involved in the game. Currently teams, below the salary floor have no financial incentive to train since paying trainer's salary would mean they would make less money. If these teams are tanking, very little manger engagement is needed. They just need to log on every few weeks. This is a very boring strategy and many of these managers, whose interest in the game has likely waned, just end up quitting. If we count trainer salary towards the floor, it now makes good financial sense to train. Training takes more manager engagement and can help keep these managers interested in the game.