BuzzerBeater Forums

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.

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.

If you add staff to the floor, it discourages training as it means less available salary for a competitive teams roster.

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.

This is the issue the salary floor resolves. Managers can easily do this and bank a fortune. They get rewarded for intentionally being uncompetitive. Increasing the floor for higher leagues just pushes teams to deliberately tank to lower divisions to make easier profit.

A minute of your time every few weeks until you have enough money to get motivated again is a real strategy. I've got one in my current league and another who was relegated to another league in the same division. That's 2 teams with 20+ seasons experience each I can point out without even researching.

If we count trainer salary towards the floor, it now makes good financial sense to train. 

It already makes financial sense to train (if you don't spend $140k per week on staff and scouting) with the current inflated market. Now the price of purchacing a decent trainer has doubled over the last couple of seasons because there is far too much income in the game, making it harder for establishing teams to get access.

Just a couple of my thoughts:

my Utopia-team plays in League IV. I don't really want to be competitive just now (or ever). Training is my main focus. Since it's Utopia, we don't have any bots in the league.

Our salary floor is at approximately 50k. I pay around 70k for my players and have tried to stay as close to the salary floor as possible. But since I've been training a couple of players, I was bound to have a higher salary than the salary floor at some point. If I remember correctly, we've got only around 3-4 teams that have higher salaries on their rosters. I make around 90-100k a week (without even trying).

My point is: the salary floor is definitely too low, also in the divs. 3-5. I have accumulated over 2.5 Mio without trying (and not counting the 800k+ I spend for a lvl. 5 coach) or the trainees that I acquired.

I'm not tanking intentionally but I don't really know what else I should spend the money on. My arena is developed pretty well. So I'm hoarding the money in order to be able to buy new coaches, maybe later on some new trainees. Or be able to keep my trainees on the team even if they get expensive later on.

If the salary floor was raised by 30-40k, my strategy would not change. I'd probably buy a decent 20k PG and would be a little bit more competitive even though I'd continue my training.

So I don't see your point, banana, why a raise of the salary floor would be bad in the lower divisions? I've got the feeling that it's just your strategy (or your spending quite a lot of money on your staff) that you want to continue without any new obstacles. But if the salary floor was raised, you'd just get a lvl 4 (or even 5) coach, those are still good enough to develop a franchise player for your team (Superstar+ potentional). And a lvl. 4 doc is not cheap but also not something that should cost 50k salary ...

I guess you'd adjust, your whole league would be more competitive and you could still train your draftees for your team (and maybe even make MORE money than before ...)

If you add staff to the floor, it discourages training as it means less available salary for a competitive teams roster.

Both of the things you're saying here are simply untrue. Adding staff to the floor does not discourage training since teams below the salary floor can save money on expensive staff salaries. Also, you do realize that there is no situation where, if staff were part of the salary floor, teams would be making less than they currently do; so how does this equate to "less available salary for a competitive teams roster."

The salary floor is good because as you say we don't want to reward teams for " intentionally being uncompetitive." But raising it too high (ie making it as high as a competitive playoff team's salary) will mean lower seeded teams make less money than higher seeded teams. If this were the case, it would be tough for teams to ever catch those above them. We don't want to reward tankers, but we don't want to take it to the other extreme where the best teams in a division always make the most money.

Last edited by banana64 at 2/11/2016 6:20:26 PM

You got me there. The frustration of failing to help you see common sense must have got me confused...

The reality of your situation is that you overspend on staff and think raising the salary floor would negatively impact your chance to develop. Rather than look at the fact that you could do things better, you think you need more than everyone before you who got to where they are by doing things the smart way.

You spend more than the floor on staff, so you still wouldn't be catching up as efficiently as you could by playing to your situation. If you did have more money to spend, you would just have more to waste thinking that the most expensive trainer your salary can afford is your best option. All that does is limit your finances.

Increasing the salary floor would (again) affect everyone equally. The result would be decreasing the amount of money teams can accumulate and overspend with less impact when purchasing staff and players. Teams like yourself who ineffectely spend their profit would be forced to learn how to adapt and become more efficient with your income. Keeping lower divisions exempt from an increased floor will only give teams in higher divisions more reason to demote.

You got me there. The frustration of failing to help you see common sense must have got me confused...

Why do you say things like that when you keep repeating this.

Increasing the salary floor would (again) affect everyone equally.

I have explained my reasoning why this is untrue and why teams who make less money would be more affected. I'd appreciate it if you addressed my response instead of completely ignoring it and simply repeating the same thing over and over again.

I'll explain it again, for teams with comparable salaries (ie at the salary floor), raising the salary floor would have the greatest effect on the teams which make the least money. Saying that all teams would be affected equally is like saying governments should implement a flat income tax of $20k because it will affect everyone equally. Taking from everyone equally does not mean everyone is affected equally.