BuzzerBeater Forums

first, we did state the the merchandising info would result in an increase in money of up to 10-20% depending upon the makeup of the team.

second, the TV contract money increases offset continued increases in player salaries. previously we had reduced the revenue sharing tax as the mechanism to increase revenues as salaries increased. That mechanism ran out, and so we had to create a new one.

Rather than continue to adjust the total amount of money in the game we decided it was better off to figure out a way to reach equilibrium faster, hence the upcoming adjusted salary scale. As long as salaries were continuing arise, we would necessarily have to find a way to increase revenues in the game or else the best players would not be employable.

Finally, the change in arena's attendance were not designed to increase or decrease the net amount of money in the game, rather reduce the variance in the amount of money earned by top division teams in particular in order to assure that it continued to be possible for promoting teams to compete and not have an insurmountable amount of arena building between them and a competitive revenue stream.

You seem to be upset at the steps we took, but you haven't expressed an alternate solution to the broader macroeconomic concerns we were addressing in each case.

But, probably that factor would be determined based on population parameters. In the end, irrespective of the chosen mecanism, salaries would be adjusted upon population changes. And probably, also on incomes and expenses globally obtained.

What I am saying is that it doesn't matter how the model is constructed. The highest skilled players still have the highest salaries. The all-atrocious guys out there will still be paid the least. So therefore, skill level is still the most important factor in determining salary.

When people start to say that skills won't matter (or matter very little) in determining salaries, that's where I start to get nervous. I don't want to see my bench player become so expensive that I can't afford him anymore. I also don't want to lose the competitive edge that I have gained by training players that are multi-skilled (and therefore have lower salaries).

I don't see how this is different from what I said.

The skill of a player will still be the most important factor in his salary (maybe the only factor). Sure, you can change the model used to calculate the salaries, even make it dependent on other outside factors that I cannot control. But that doesn't change the fact that he is still getting paid based on his skill level, even if the amount he gets paid is relative.

yes, i believe charles was not disagreeing with you.

yes, i believe charles was not disagreeing with you.

Well, who can I have a disagreement with, then? ;-)

Sorry, I thought he was disagreeing with me.

Charles just between us I don't think so... The prices at the beginning of every season were at the bottom only the 18yo drafted has been sold overprices, before the PO we always had the highest prices paid, probably the second combination could be a reason of these prices even if in Italy (for example) no one sold arena seats and as far as I understood by your words

as announced, the salaries paid out starting season 11 will be tuned to global income, so even if we're wrong that this is a temporary problem caused by a set of arena changes that couldn't be avoided, it's still a temporary problem solved by the start of next season.

seems that in season 11 we will have a replay of season 9, it means that seaon 12 will be similar to season 10? The economy in this game is very important don't change suddenly the "rules" otherwise for us it will be difficult to apply a long term strategy. What I'm sure 100% is that without BBs intervention the prices will raise or stay stable for all the season; the best players will be paid around 10m, ipse dixit

I don't see how this is different from what I said.

The skill of a player will still be the most important factor in his salary (maybe the only factor). Sure, you can change the model used to calculate the salaries, even make it dependent on other outside factors that I cannot control. But that doesn't change the fact that he is still getting paid based on his skill level, even if the amount he gets paid is relative.

It also doesn't change the fact that depending on how the factors other than the skills of a player change over the course of a season, a salary can go up, down, or stay the same even without a single minute of training. To me, this makes salary somewhat more indirectly dependent on skill (as opposed to the current scheme, where if you don't train, you know that salary doesn't change).

I guess it's a matter of semantics.

No, I don't.

Inflation of the money stock results in prices scaling up across the board. If ample warning was given (as it was), prudent individuals were able to hold off with sales until they see how the new economy calibrates. Unfortunately, as I mentioned already, you can take a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

No there shouldn't, at least according to the formulas calculated by Josef Ka

I don't see any training that can train solely 1.000 skills at any position. So yes, it should.

first, we did state the the merchandising info would result in an increase in money of up to 10-20% depending upon the makeup of the team.

Forrest, the news of season 8 claimed that domestic players would become better economically (10-20%) than foreign ones.
It's not the same. For example, in HT this is done by making foreign players' salaries more expensive and thereby increases the costs.

You seem to be upset at the steps we took, but you haven't expressed an alternate solution to the broader macroeconomic concerns we were addressing in each case.

I actually like the direction your steps go towards. Managing the game economy is far from being trivial and is probably far from being the most fun part for you.
I am upset because all your effort was sort of ruined by the inflation we are observing on the market. From Charles' words I understand that it was not intentional and, in a way, I am happy to hear that.



Last edited by Newton07 at 9/28/2009 5:30:09 PM