BuzzerBeater Forums

I mean I kinda feel obligated to vote against a merchandise boost based on a single player purely because that inherently disadvantages the playstyle I like to use, (strong bench players and 5 good-but-not-great starters) It also directly powers up the teams my lineup is meant to counter (ones with a lot of strength concentrated in 1-2 players).

But I also welcome the challenge of going against the grain. I chose this playstyle because it allows me to compete effectively despite having 15% less than the league average budget (I haven't finished my arena yet, team is too new), and I really don't think a $5K difference (between what I'd receive and what most others in my league would get) in a budget of over $300K really is gonna make or break anyone.

Tl;Dr: Against it bc it nerfs my playstyle, but won't be too upset if it happens bc it seems like a relatively small change.

Giving extra merch for one player only, discourages managers from stacking 3-5 of them in one team and encourage teams to buy their own star, instead of being a mid-low table team having no reason to have a star.

So getting additional 50k (for a 250k salary star) instead of 30k (for a regular top tier player @ ~150k salary) or essentially an additional 20k per week is supposed to "encourage teams to buy their own star" and doing so decrease their performance levels cause we all know that the BB game engine rewards balance?

Seriously? I don't feel encouraged...

In all of these cases regarding player value, I would remind the BBs that managers have absolute control over how long to train a player. As such, they have significant control over the player's salary. Perhaps they have made a poor choice to train players so long, inflating their skills and thus salary. Well, that is their choice. Why should they get "bailed out" of their poor decision?

I would hate for BB to encourage managers not to train players to their fullest potential. Yes, I agree that managers should take care to train skills in such a way that the salary doesn't become very high without the added boost in talent. However, buzzerbeater should be doing more to encourage having these tremendous players on your team and not the opposite. People loving having a star on their team who can put up big stats and if you look at the NBA it is a stars league.

Buzzerbeater is not a stars league. Just looking at USA division 1 for example, only 5 players average of 20 points per game. In the NBA that number is 27. Yes BB has less offense and less teams in a league, but it definitely has less stars.

I think incentivizing users to create these awesome players is a good idea. However, I do agree that having it purely based on their salary is poor design. Adding extra merchandise should be based on performance such as being a league leader, national team player, etc. With many of the top national team players, you have to ruin yourself financially to keep them long term and it pushes you to have a short roster. The harder it is to keep these players the more national team competition will turn into which country has the most farm accounts that can train and hold onto these players.

I know that might not have been your point, I've just in general seen pushback against teams lead by stars recently and I disagree with that viewpoint.

Off the top of my head - how about getting back a part (20-30%) of the training exemption (limited at around 500k) back in the form of some kind of new merch? It would tremendously boost training value and also reduce average salary costs.

I do agree about the salary formulas too, but that's not gonna be easy and could unleash hell if not done right.