BuzzerBeater Forums

Is it me or in the old system, staff would lost a level from time to time to force people to change again ?

Yes. And if there was no good staff available, you were then stuck with an underperforming staff member even if you had money to spend. Not the case now.

The old system was random and required constant (weekly) monitoring to run it effectively. Even then you could be screwed due to the effect explained above but that just goes with the randomness. The current one is stable and requires no micro management. But it does require planning ahead (and possibly action) at least on the season level, which seems reasonable for staff system. The only real problem is the supply/price of new staff, but that is a problem everyone shares. This can make staff changes appear like too much work if one insists on having good staff (mainly trainer). Overall, the current mechanism anyway seems to work quite nicely from the game design point of view.

I would mostly be interested in improvements to the way the staff does their business. If you want a change, make that aspect somehow deeper and more involving. I don't know how. The "weekly price increase is not realistic" rant is getting pretty old, and there is no clear proposal on how to improve that such that it makes the game nicer to play. More realistic is not the same thing as more playable.

GM-seelenjaeger - It sound like you just dont want to do nothing,the "good" things you say about the system a void in my eyes...and no it's not all about manage it's the staff you dont need to take so much planing with them.

And i must underscore that i dont think that the opld system was very good,i just say it sucked less then the current one and i dont see the "improvment" in it and onlt see defects in it.

GM-WallyOop - I agree that the staff system should be a 1 time in season handeling but by the weeky wage rise it is NOT.
You can say that "rant is old" but that IS the main defect in this system! and i suggested that the stuff members will take
a certin % of the team income and AGAIN it is ignored and you say that "there is no clear proposal"? what is that if not a proposal?

We dont want a weekly wage rise,i dont even think that the staff bidding system is a good idea as it cause a lot of problems as an advantage for richer teams,unstable prices(the same lvl 6 coach can be bought one time at 1M and next week at 200K it's all about how many teams and how rich the teams that want him)and it also make a lot of resistance to changes in the current system to prevent bidding wars and a lot of users in need of new staff...i dont thik it shoukd be a bidding system they are not players! there are fights in the players market but on staff market?

But i can live with the bidding system(even that it suck and i think i also need to be changed)but the wage rise is a critical issue - dont cancel it with "old rant" IT NEED TO BE CHANGED aint BB suppose to be a game for fun? well that ruin it a lot,i have so many good things to say about this game and i try to get friend involved in it and this is the only thing that is so bad in it that i feel that it MUST be changed,all other things are minor and can be lived with.

I played in 3-4 other basketball games like BB non was close to the fun it give but all had a lot better staff systems...dont we want to improve the game instead of saying "it's good as it is?" i am sure that a user survey on this would see a lot more then 50% supporting a change to the staff system.

suggestion: (open for development and discussion)

a) each team will have a staff member with a salary that either stays the same throughout the entire season or takes a certain percent of teams income (as Doctor J suggested).

b) twice a season all managers will have the option to change their staff members either one level down or one level up (without bidding!). both upgrade or downgrade will cost the manger a certain amount of cash (downgrade will cost less then upgrade) this change of staff option will be open at start of season and on all-star week (mid season).

c) at any point of the season manager can fire any staff member (to save salaries) and remain with a minimal level staff. he cant hire a new manager until the seasonal staff change periods described in section b. mind that firing a staff member is an extreme move because when time come u can only hire a new staff with just ONE level higher then what u have now...

this system (after some further corrections and thought put into it) will force managers to really put thought into any staff change they do, considering if they have the economy to allow a better and more expensive staff, and plan ahead to current and next seasons.
it can also give us a better view and ability to really plan our weekly economy, because if we calculated that a certain staff is what we can afford, we wont be "stuck" suddenly with a level 5 trainer that eats up a salary that many level 7 trainers dont get.

open for debate/improvement suggestions

GM-WallyOop - I agree that the staff system should be a 1 time in season handeling but by the weeky wage rise it is NOT.
You can say that "rant is old" but that IS the main defect in this system! and i suggested that the stuff members will take
a certin % of the team income and AGAIN it is ignored and you say that "there is no clear proposal"? what is that if not a proposal?

My point is that the weekly raise is completely predictable. Therefore you need not keep an eye on the staff wages all the time. On the other hand, a change where the spending on staff input does not change over time (in your proposal it fluctuates in absolute values but not in relative values) requires very little planning whatsoever. It's largely just set once, then forget sort of thing. (Think arena building for established teams. How exciting is that?) The game play implications of the current system win in my opinion.

But i can live with the bidding system(even that it suck and i think i also need to be changed)but the wage rise is a critical issue - dont cancel it with "old rant" IT NEED TO BE CHANGED aint BB suppose to be a game for fun? well that ruin it a lot,i have so many good things to say about this game and i try to get friend involved in it and this is the only thing that is so bad in it that i feel that it MUST be changed,all other things are minor and can be lived with.

Seriously?

But I would actually gladly change the staff bidding system if someone presented a well-thought alternative. The way it is currently implemented is just about need right now - buy at any cost, need later - try to find a deal. The staff members have a constant pay increase (in %) and zero or one specialty per bozo. It's a fairly simple numbers game and pretty boring really to bid in this setting. With player auctions, you are dealing with training plans, game tactics, skill distributions, NT spot/potential, visible personalities (if you are at least a bit role playing inclined), etc. There seems to be a point in the bidding, and it can even be fun. I like it although it can be frustrating at times. As a seller, it can also be somewhat interesting. Staff bidding is just about saving a little money or more of your in-game time.

dont we want to improve the game instead of saying "it's good as it is?" i am sure that a user survey on this would see a lot more then 50% supporting a change to the staff system.

I am all for improvements, have been all the time. Like said, more realistic is not the same thing as more playable.

I know,the market is fake,at all-there should not be any market for staff! it's the only game i have seen that have a system like this for staff...maybe BB programers would leave a roten system as long as it's "original" i dont know why else...come on it's been a lot of seasons since it was implanted i'm not the onlt one that hate it and in my domastic country ther have been others saying it suck,just look how much time and effort i put in this post and understand i truly think and belive it need to be changed...number game? salary prediction? it should be for players only! crazy game let a player get a yealy wage raise but staff memebr a weekly raise...i heard the less realistic more playable but this it not near realistic...just give my tea, doctor the arena income,give my trainer the players slarys! it's evenly realistic as this weekly raise...i dont have power to fight people that dont want to chnage and\or improve something and they say all the time "it's good" and dont even counter my sating about the lack og this system...dont give any good things on it-counter the bad ones i put in this post!

Untill it can be counterd in a logic way-the system still suck even if i suddenly think it is great.

Last edited by Doctor J at 9/26/2012 4:12:26 PM

I think the solution is to calculate staff salaries each season like players, but also make the staff trainable.

First, give them ages & five skills:
Doctor - Injury Reduction, Taping Injuries, Massage, Experience, Potential
Trainer - Skill Development, Fitness, Career Extension, Experience, Potential
PR-Manager - Marketing, National Appeal, Crowd Involvement, Experience, Potential

Then let teams invest directly in one of these "Professional Development" options each week:
- Injury Reduction Conference
- Training Conference
- Marketing Conference
- Injury Taping Seminar
- Fitness Seminar
- National Media Seminar
- Massage Clinic
- Skill Maintenance Clinic
- Cheerleading Clinic

Just like players, make young staff develop faster than old staff and make really old staff deteriorate.

Then, have a "HR Department" that has all the staff whom you could hire, including both a steady stream of new blood and the staff other teams have let go. The "HR Department" would be a TL for the staff, except everyone would be a free agent. Then all we need to do is base salaries on skill levels and experience, making older staff more expensive (someone has to pay into their pension funds!), and we have a functioning staff economy where you pay for what you get and have an incentive to change staff from time to time!

Additionally, there could be the random possibility that your staff might decide to leave, at which point they would spontaneously put themselves on the "HR Department" list (of course sending a notice to your "BB News" page so you could lure them back with a bonus). The desire to leave could even be a "hidden skill" that changes based on age, length of employment and success - like in RL.

This is a nice idea,i dont like the random leaving but still the idea that my stuff is getting better as i pay him more is A LOT better then the current you get nothing and still pay more system...i support this idea (:

Have been reading this thread.

One thing i STRONGLY disagree with is that the current staff system benefits the rich clubs. Why not? It is for no manager a good economical deal to buy a high-level manager. For a level 6 trainer you first need to pay for the manager. To have a trainer with 30k salary you probably have to pay at least 1 million. For a season you will have to pay around 1.5M and for two seasons around 2M. The added value of your players from having them trained is so low today that it must be rather rare that you can benefit economically from training a player. If your only goal is to have a U21 or senior team player you can pay these money and the rest of the team can be crap, at least if you want an U21 player.

I think that the cost for buying a trainer is way too high. Current system awards teams that decide to not train players. Even a level 4 trainer is rather expensive in buying price and salary and below that level the training effect is likely to be so low that the interest in training a player becomes minimal.

I can only see a few ways forward:
1) Increase the availability of high-level trainers so that it is much cheaper to buy them. At least a level 5 trainer should be possible to buy for any team so that it is possible to train players with a decent long-term benefit.

2) Have a fixed price for a trainer. I think that it is ridiculous with a transfer market for staff. I can understand that the developers wants to add things to do in the game but this thing is just stupid and mainly adds a moment of irritation into the game. Active teams are enough rewarded from e.g. better game shape of their players so no need to as well make them benefit economically from buying best priced staff continuously.

3) Fixed price and a fixed salary of trainer. Let the salary of the trainer be the main reason for wanting to have a lower level trainer. Make the salary high so that you only benefit from a high-level trainer if you actually train players that benefits much from training.

4) Maybe wrong thread to suggest it. Remove game shape training from the list of available trainings. This would make the role of the trainer much different and also promote teams to train players even if they are old. Hattrick removed game shape training and I have not noticed major complaints due to this.