BuzzerBeater Forums

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.

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.

Who is not paying attention? Raise your hands. I said every time you fire the player you get a skill drop. Who said anything about transfers?
We are talking about catchup for lower league teams, not within the league. That's why arena income was capped. With 2 of those max salary players there is no way anyone can matchup at those spots. We just need to wait until the automated salary adjustment and players overall skill catches up. Atm these guys are freaks of the training system a unwanted sideeffect, but it will even out in time. TV contracts, merchandising is raising every season and salarys will keep dropping if players get more skilled.
Salary capping is the worst solution ever, it's almost the same as introducing player contracts. There is a way to get more skills out of a player for the same salary, it's called all around training. People should try it.

No good solution is probably the right answer so far. The obvious reason for this is because BB is different from real life. In real life, salaries conform to the market and players go to where they get the best combination of salary and whatever other factors are important to them (team location, league, teammates, endorsement/marketing income potential, local taxes, etc.). In BB, the salary is already set, so the market is about who will bid for the player at a given, nonnegotiable particular salary. (Sure, this difference is a bit gray when players already are under contract and their contracts are sold, but eventually these contracts expire and it’s back to letting the market decide the new contract.) And herein lies the fundamental cause for the complaining about salaries, that the team owners who have to pay the salaries don’t like how the salaries are fixed in spite of what they are claiming is the actual market value of their salaries. Fixing this issue probably means either changing the way players (including players already on the roster) are signed (like creating a contract system or some other radical means), which would alter BB so much it’s not even worth going down that path, or BB creating an algorithm smart enough to determine market value with an accuracy that could it probably also figure out how to fix the US health care system, too (good luck with that algorithm, guys).

This is what you wrote about it:

For this it would be nice to introduce a signing fee- let's say if you buy a player you have to pay two weeks salaries immediately as the transaction closes, and you have to have that cash available when making the bid. This at least would minimize the incentive to go beyond the top absolute salaries we have today for the sake of an NT, even though it would depress the market for the existing top end players even further in the short term.
As for Knecht's proposal, I'm a bit concerned how this would distort the market. Clearly trainiers would scramble for the cap, and players just slightly below or slightly above the cap skill-wise would lose market value, whereas the hypothetical 1 million $ monster would be extremely attractive at a cost of $ 300k - a big discouragement to the multiskilling trend that the BBs hope to promote.

As I mentioned earlier, introducing a 2 week signing bonus per player will absolutely kill the market and this game. There is already so much moeny taken out of the game which is a big part of the reason the transfer market is so low at the moment. Implementing something like this will reduce prices so much and players like the 1 million dollar salary player would simply stay on the market because he will constantly be saved because he is on the national team.

I disagree with your last paragraph. I would prefer a player with slightly lower primaries and much better secondaries even if they were both at the same salary.

For example consider the following center:

Jump Shot: tremendous Jump Range: prolific
Outside Def.: tremendous Handling: sensational
Driving: sensational Passing: prolific
Inside Shot: stupendous Inside Def.: legendary
Rebounding: stupendous Shot Blocking: prominent

Total skill points: 136
or

Jump Shot: respectable Jump Range: mediocre
Outside Def.: mediocre Handling: respectable
Driving: respectable Passing: mediocre
Inside Shot: legendary (25) Inside Def.: legendary (30)
Rebounding: legendary (25) Shot Blocking: legendary

Total skill points: 136

Which player would you prefer?

This is what you wrote about it:

For this it would be nice to introduce a signing fee- let's say if you buy a player you have to pay two weeks salaries immediately as the transaction closes, and you have to have that cash available when making the bid. This at least would minimize the incentive to go beyond the top absolute salaries we have today for the sake of an NT, even though it would depress the market for the existing top end players even further in the short term.
As for Knecht's proposal, I'm a bit concerned how this would distort the market. Clearly trainiers would scramble for the cap, and players just slightly below or slightly above the cap skill-wise would lose market value, whereas the hypothetical 1 million $ monster would be extremely attractive at a cost of $ 300k - a big discouragement to the multiskilling trend that the BBs hope to promote.

As I mentioned earlier, introducing a 2 week signing bonus per player will absolutely kill the market and this game. There is already so much moeny taken out of the game which is a big part of the reason the transfer market is so low at the moment. Implementing something like this will reduce prices so much and players like the 1 million dollar salary player would simply stay on the market because he will constantly be saved because he is on the national team.

I disagree with your last paragraph. I would prefer a player with slightly lower primaries and much better secondaries even if they were both at the same salary.

For example consider the following center:

Jump Shot: tremendous Jump Range: prolific
Outside Def.: tremendous Handling: sensational
Driving: sensational Passing: prolific
Inside Shot: stupendous Inside Def.: legendary
Rebounding: stupendous Shot Blocking: prominent

Total skill points: 136
or

Jump Shot: respectable Jump Range: mediocre
Outside Def.: mediocre Handling: respectable
Driving: respectable Passing: mediocre
Inside Shot: legendary (25) Inside Def.: legendary (30)
Rebounding: legendary (25) Shot Blocking: legendary

Total skill points: 136

Which player would you prefer?

The first is a better Pf and Sf,the second is a far away better C.It's simple
I think that both capping the players at a salary max(300k for example9,and lower training rate are not solutions.
I think that other reduction of the salaries in the next seasons(that affect ALL the players,not only the best,as it would be unfair towards who have a 20k or a 200k player) and a medium increase of the arena attendence will adjust the situation going on with the time

Last edited by Steve Karenn at 10/11/2010 11:09:48 AM

Sorry I got the idea confused with the paying of a weeks salary every time someone buys a player.
Look at it another way, if there is no maximum salary then this game will become impossible for a new team to win the championship. In the current system, there is a way to get the "best" team. You can get a team in the current cap that is unbeatable given the same enthusiasm, neutral court and same gameshape. However, if you can train players as much as you want without raising the salary past 300k then this game becomes more about skill. It becomes more about training players in the best way so that you create the best team regardless of what their salary will be. It also increases the value of higher level trainers. It also means that a new team can win the NBBA or the spanish division 1 or italian division 1 because it isn't all about money now, it is about how well you can train a team.