BuzzerBeater Forums

In real life players can agree to a lower salary. You can not implement this into the game. ATM we have a situation where we have too many of those high salary centers. What people need to understand is - there are different ways to play this game. Some like having one monster player in their team, some like playing with equal players. We have a situation where both versions are possible. We agree that atm if you single position train a good trainee with decent trainer you can reach the max in 3 skills. But this strategy creates a player that takes away most of the teams income. If BB's want to make these players affordable, they can eather lower salary (which they are doing depending on overall skill), or lowering training speed. If you lower training speed, then it becomes a race of who ownes the most "maxed" out players (as you can afford all those "maxed" players). I think we have a great balance at the moment, if you train smartly you get a better team compared to the one monster supporters.
To me a salary that is too high for championship team to manage = bad training (who cares what the NT coaches say).

I think you are missing part of the point though. The point is that we are having high salary players change teams every week because no team is stupid enough to keep the player long term. So the player is just being bounced around and taking a ridiculous amount of money out of the economy. Also, these players are obviously great players or they wouldn't be on the national teams. And why shouldn't the top teams be able to have the top players without having to have the rest of the teams as scrubs. Simply make the max salary 300k and it will solve a lot of problems.

I am not missing the point. I know some of these players exist and they should just fade out. Max salary should never be introduced, it's smarter to lower training speed before capping salarys. Obviously if these players start to go for 50k, people will buy them and play two games then just fire them (without paying the salary). Perhaps introduce a skill drop every time someone get's fired to counter this behaviour. If people still buy those players, whose fault is that?:D It's not smart managing.

Why is it not smart managing if you are in the NBBA to sign the best player in the world to your team? Beacuse in BB the best players demand silly salaries that the best teams can't really afford.

I am not missing the point. I know some of these players exist and they should just fade out. Max salary should never be introduced, it's smarter to lower training speed before capping salarys. Obviously if these players start to go for 50k, people will buy them and play two games then just fire them (without paying the salary). Perhaps introduce a skill drop every time someone get's fired to counter this behaviour. If people still buy those players, whose fault is that?:D It's not smart managing.

They will never fade out. Eventually you will get to a point where there are so many players like this on the market that they can be bought for 100k and fired before the salary update like you said. And if this was the case I would buy the player because his skills are awesome for 100k. I simply fire him every week after saturdays game and hire him the following week. 100k a week is awesome for a player like that. Lowering training speed isn't the answer either. Why should everyone suffer because there are players that are too good with too high salary?? Why shouldn't there be a max salary? If the best player has 500k salary and he isn't on a team in division 1 then there is a problem with the game.

You can't pull the life card on everything. Some things just are not suitable for a game. Could Estonian champion really be on par with the Lakers? Comparing every little detail to real life is just absurd.
In this game the best player is the one who has the most skills and is still affordable.

The best player should be the player with the most skills regardless of price. The price should be adapted to the amount made in the top leagues.

There are prolly more players that would buy him for 100k. So you would have competition and therefore he still costs more. If they introduce skill drop for every player release, we would get an affordable player soon, or get him to a range when he is not really desirable any more.

Why shouldn't there be a max salary?

Because it would create an unfair advantage to the top teams with good funds. How can a C with +5 in inside skills (all other skills are equal) cost the same.

There are prolly more players that would buy him for 100k. So you would have competition and therefore he still costs more. If they introduce skill drop for every player release, we would get an affordable player soon, or get him to a range when he is not really desirable any more.

Why shouldn't there be a max salary?

Because it would create an unfair advantage to the top teams with good funds. How can a C with +5 in inside skills (all other skills are equal) cost the same.

If there are enough of these players on the market then you might get a player for 100k. I'd even spend up to 300k or something if required. Still better than paying the salary. Taking skill pops of every single player that exists every time a player is sold is ludicrous and should never happen. It would kill this game.

I don't see how it creates an unfair advantage to the top teams with good funds. Everyone in your league is approximately the same, so no one in your league has an advantage over you.
And a Center with +5 in inside skills will not cost the same. The salary will be the same, but the cost to buy the player will be double, or even triple the price.
It also provides a much greater incentive to keep training players. If I trained a player well he could hit the 200k salary mark before he is 23 years old. But why should I have to stop training now? He still has 2 or 3 decent seasons of training left in him. But at this point any extra training is reducing his value on the transfer market so teams won't do it. This isn't how it should be.

And if this was the case I would buy the player because his skills are awesome for 100k. I simply fire him every week after saturdays game and hire him the following week.

haha, but how will the poor guy feed his family? to avoid this exploit, latest when we get to this point buyers will have to pay one salary at purchase time.

btw the so-called 500k monstes are now spread out over ages 23-28. So once we have such players reach 33 years there will be about two times as many of them around. Maybe your 100k-scenario is not so unrealistic.

haha he is a player in an online game, I'm sure he could find a byte somewhere ;) hehe
Making the team have to pay 1 weeks salary is just removing more money from the economy and transfer prices will drop even more than they are now.

Exactly, there are so many of these monster players around that are going to be around for the next 5 to 10 seasons. The more of these players that exist, the more money that gets taken out of the game, which means less money going around, which means that transfer prices will drop even more than now, which means that training becomes worthless, which means teams will simply tank one season and rake in the money and then buy a team that would rival the best team in the world for a mere 3 million dollars. This is a problem that needs to be dealt with now, and limiting salaries at 300k is the perfect solution.