BuzzerBeater Forums

I see, that the salary floor in "competitive" leagues might be too low - good indicator would be demoting teams, that promote the next season, but then again we could raise the demotion penalty and hurt specific teams that underperform.

That seems to also be attacking the results, not the behavio(u)r. If the goal is to prevent tanking, it needs to address that, not the teams that go 8-14 but lose a relegation series.

On the salary floor, there's a lot of posting about how this negatively impacts new teams in, I presume, smaller nations (since a new team in the USA in IV would have a quite comfortable salary floor still). The figures I've seen about tripling the salaries and having $200k+ salary floors clearly would not apply in anything below a very competitive II league, and probably more likely a semi-competitive I.

So what if the actual application of the salary floor is phased in based on the league level? If you're in IV, after 16 weeks you should be fine. Maybe even the same for III, since that's under 110k for me both in the US and A and in Utopia, but then 32 weeks for II and 48 weeks for I. That gives those teams who may actually have a legitimate gripe more of an opportunity to get their team built up to a point to conform.

I am in no position to decide that. The analyst will have to evaluate their changes...

Inflation in the economy is so bad, your best financial option is to tank and ride out this storm.

I don't see the need to spoon feed managers.

Yay, we agree!

and an advanced trainer is likely to be beyond the reach of a new team trying to get above the salary floor.

You can get one for 5k bid with a low salary as long as you dont shop now at the start of the season. A lvl3 one can be aquiered for 1k and he will have a low salary.

Two points: one, it is the start of the season NOW, not the middle. Two, it doesn't matter, a new team cannot get their guys trained up in 16 weeks, let alone eight weeks starting in the middle of the season.

But I fully support Perpetes suggestion of a longer exception from the floor.

{and from another post}

So what if the actual application of the salary floor is phased in based on the league level?

Note the two bolded lines ... when you have to start changing and diluting a new feature that has been in effect less than a week, odds are it isn't a good feature.

And training is something every new manager should do. Specially now with the new change in the starting roster.

Please, I have a question: what is "the new change in the starting roster" you mention? Thanks.

Apparently you're guaranteed a decent 18yo trainee (allstar potential, mind you) when you pick up a new team.

All considered, nobody would really care if they increased the number to 2 players like that. I would also lock them to the team for 16 weeks.

Last edited by Lemonshine at 2/19/2016 4:10:34 PM

I really doubt you need that long. In a semicompetitive D1 you could build your arena in 1 season if you do nothing at all and just accumulate money and build. Anyone building a little will be fine no matter what the level he's in.

But I fully support Perpetes suggestion of a longer exception from the floor.

{and from another post}

So what if the actual application of the salary floor is phased in based on the league level?

Note the two bolded lines ... when you have to start changing and diluting a new feature that has been in effect less than a week, odds are it isn't a good feature.

I can't speak for Perpete, but for my part, I was simply proposing some ideas to address a specific perceived concern, that somehow there exists a class of poor new users for whom this additional boost to the salary floor will scuttle them pretty much permanently after their 16 week exception. Given the parameters thrown about (you, for example, saying they need to triple their initial salaries), it's essentially a new variation of the micronation argument.

I would imagine that for any level of remotely competent management, this won't become an issue. There may be edge cases (possibly a 10-12 user nation with very old, established teams and there a new team would get smacked around but never demote), but rather than make a decision unilaterally that there is (or is not) a problem, I generally prefer to consider possible alternatives to the perceived problem, as trying to solve a problem is infinitely better than "oh, it's impossible for {new teams / teams not training / teams not day trading / teams not in micronations / teams not in the top division} to accomplish goal X."

Last edited by GM-hrudey at 2/19/2016 4:57:20 PM

Are they locked to the team? What I mean is whether the new manager can unwittingly dispose of them, because he doesn't know any better