BuzzerBeater Forums

You forgot that the top teams have to sustain a much bigger payroll and can't train 18 and 19 year olds, while worse teams can do that and invest into arena. After a certain number of seasons, the top team will have to buy great 21 and 22y olds to stay on top that cost much more than 18y olds. And those great 22y olds with good secondaries are not growing on trees; they are quite rare and expensive.

I'm sure a 18y old HoF who was bought for 1M can be sold for 2 - 3M after three seasons of training if he is trained correctly. So a worse team who invested 1M and three seasons of training doesn't have to spend those 3M, while a top team has to in order to stay on top. Also after three seasons, top team's players are 3 yeard older and they are losing their value.

I think everything will fall in place after few more seasons. The only anomaly that really stands out for me is countries with small number of users that can save money for few seasons and then buy out a B3 or something. However, I think this will also correct itself as more and more teams are training multiskill players that will be very expensive to buy, but easy to maintain. I know a team like Venomous Scorpions has enough money to buy such players, but there are also teams who will keep their trainees and won't have to invest as much as VS will have to in order to win B3, home championship or cup.

Note that I use VS only as an example of a small-country team with loads of money, it's nothing "personal".

Last edited by Koperboy at 11/30/2011 5:17:13 AM

Lousy team plays teenage's salary like this:

1st season 5k
2nd season 10k
3rd season 20k

Top team plays the same player's salary like this:

4th season 40k
5th season 70k
6th season 120k

In those 3 seasons, lousy team has a new guy that is paying 5-7x less than top team and can maintain low payroll and shoot for 5th place every season until they build an areana big enough for their league and save enough money to buy 2-3 superstars who'd join his trainees, now good enough to compete with the top team. So from the moment new team enters the top league until it can compete with top team, 6-8 seasons can go by. For some that's a lot, for some it's normal. But I don't understand those who think this process should take no more than 2-3 seasons which is not realistic at all. On other hand, the same people want the game to be realistic as much as possible. Luckily those are in minority, but it seems like this is majority because they are so loud on forums. Those people will never be satisfied, so their "problems" must be taken with a grain of salt.

What has salary got to do with value of the player?

JS 12, JR 12
OD 14, HA 13
DR 13, PA 11
IS 2, ID 7
RB 2, SB 1

This was my trainee at end of his 20s. If he had HoF potential, wouldn't you pay 3M for him? I know I would.

DIfferent fans have different priorities but I ahve never ever ever in my entire life heard a fan say 'I'm not goign tonight because they lost their last game'.

In Argentina it applyes. there are chants that say "you sell out only when you win at home" and there are some clubs that are pointed as "bitter" (amargos) for being so irregular when their team doesn't win two games in a row...

If you keep loosing a lot of games your income suffers more than with loss away and win at home. Bigger winning streak nets you more income.
You want the last game not to matter. I think that's just plain wrong. Like I said in your suggestion thread it's all about the ability to evaluate the schedule. You know when the prices change. Evaluate those games that have the same ticket pricing, then set your prices depending on games you win before your home game. This is called maximizing arena income. If you don't like the income flucktuation. You can set prices that bring full house, weather you win or lose. This way you get guaranteed income (although smaller) and can always count on it. Really evaluating 7-8 games is not something undoable, like you are suggesting here.

Sorry, I train locals only