BuzzerBeater Forums

I don't know if the opinion of a newcomer will be interesting to the new owners but I think that salaries should be weighted, at least minimally based on the age of the players.
That is to say, a very young player who, well trained, could rise a lot should have a salary slightly higher than what he had at the start of the season, I'm not saying what he will theoretically have at the end of the season, but something higher because it is assumed that he will give up something more.
On the other hand, the opposite happens with very mature players, each year their performance drops a lot and therefore the price that has to be paid for them is much higher than the performance they give on the field.

As a BBfiction proposal, it would be to have the possibility of signing contracts with the players for 2 or 4 years (with annual updates like now) but that they are not a commodity in the hands of the teams and they have a minimum decision-making capacity. If the contract is fulfilled and they are free, there must be an auction for them not for the purchase price, or not only for that, but also for the salary paid or the level of the team.

- Inside Shot is a skill that currently cost NOTHING in our PG SG and SF formulas. This will be changed.
- Outside Defense is a skill that currently cost NOTHING in our PF and C formulas. This will be changed.
- Outside defense as a whole is a skill that is too cheap in our PG SG and SF formulas.

Even if I agree with this changes, I am worrying about where will this lead us. I feel that GE is not perfect, but it is more balanced than ever and we have to keep things like that. I know OD is affecting all kind of offensive tactics, but I think that is more affecting outside oriented tactics. If IS is more expensive in G-SF, will lead us to lower IS overall that will make inside oriented tactics worse. So this changes I feel that are in favor of outside oriented tactics.

This is why I suggest to increase a little bit the cost of ID too, if we increase the cost of OD. In every position, but less in guards. You should also increase the cost in high end SB a little bit. I will write more about SB later. I also think that the cost of IS has to decrease in bigs.

At the moment a lot of teams use guards with 20+ IS to play LI or LP and one of the reasons is that we cant have 20+ IS in bigs because of the salary. Without guards with high IS, inside oriented tactics will became worse. This is why I think IS in bigs should be a little bit cheaper.

About SB, there is a problem in the current salary formula imo, at least in D.1 bigs. I think SB is too cheap over 15 (where is very effective) and too expensive under 12 (where is almost useless). For example +4 SB in this player costs ~34k but I feel that gives you nothing against a D.1 opponent.
But +4 in this player costs ~23k and gives you a huge advantage.
Same for RB in guards, in this example ~22k that will maybe give you 0,5 RB per game.

Overall I think RB is very expensive and it should be a little bit cheaper, also in bigs. PA is also very expensive in guards. Players like Nash and Stockton are rare, but it is impossible to build a player like them in BB. You changed assists in GE just to help us score more, it is easier to make PA cheaper.

I also think that JR is a little bit expensive, but if you decrease the cost of JR, then you have to lower more the cost of IS in bigs.


Last edited by str77 at 7/2/2024 10:31:56 AM

I would suggest:
- decrease the cost of JS for PF
- decrease the cost of JR for Guards
- decrease a bit the cost of IS for PF and C

As you said it is quite weird that inside attack is not from the pf/c

I would suggest:
- decrease the cost of JS for PF
- decrease the cost of JR for Guards
- decrease a bit the cost of IS for PF and C

As you said it is quite weird that inside attack is not from the pf/c

and to put a maximum wage to pay at 250K, does not matter if real salary would be higher, max you will pay 250k
this is a way to let people train new (crazy) profiles
Give more value to top players and NT players.

and train 3 skills players with no regret

and to put a maximum wage to pay at 250K, does not matter if real salary would be higher, max you will pay 250k
this is a way to let people train new (crazy) profiles
Give more value to top players and NT players.

and train 3 skills players with no regret

If the maximum salary limit (for example at 250K as you indicate) included the prohibition of accumulating more than two or three players per team with that maximum salary, I would see it as correct. Otherwise it would be an incentive to create countless monstrous players without fear of paying a million dollars for them.
Naturally, the national teams could line up as many players as they have available with the maximum salary.

I don't think any big change in the salary formulas is needed right now. Outside tactics are already stronger than inside tactics but inside tactics are viable because teams can afford to have players with huge OD. An increase in the cost of OD would finish that, and it would probably end in everyone playing outside tactics like in the early days of BB. If you want to increase the cost of OD (which is comprehensible since IMHO that skill is too good in salary/performance ratio), it would also need to be accompanied by a effectiveness decrease of outside tactics. But, in any case, I think these kind of changes should be implemented very progressively, along no less than 5 seasons.

If I had to change anything related to skill cost, I'd change passing. And it'd be a decrease in salary for PG.

I roughly looked at the discussions here and in the Discord group and found that one perspective hasn't been mentioned:
The salary formula affects matches between teams from different divisions.

Firstly, cup games and BBM/B3 may involve matches between teams from different divisions.
Setting aside the advantages of Attitude and luck (including home advantage and injuries), the most important factor is the strength gap between the two sides.
For a low-salary team, such as a Division 2 team with a 300k salary, versus a high-salary team, such as a Division 1 team with a 600k salary,
If there is "absolutely no chance" for low-salary team, then this part of the game becomes boring.
If the salary formula almost entirely reflects match strength, it could lead to such a consequence.

Under the current salary formula, a low-salary team needs to use good secondary skills (especially IS for outside players and OD for inside players) and sacrifice some skills to compete against a high-salary team with bad secondary skills.
Although it is still difficult to win, there is at least some hope.
Therefore, it can be seen that the salary formula must find a balance between almost completely reflecting match strength and maintaining gameplay.

Alonso repeatedly mentioned that any balance or changes to the salary formulas won't be massive or huge.
If the impact is less than the salary updates in S37 (223143.53) and S38 (223143.57) or, for example, if the salary increases by 5% to 7%, I don't think we need to worry too much because after the last salary updates, we were still able to train in the same way.

Last edited by little Guest at 7/5/2024 8:55:45 AM

I second the notion that there be an indicator of next season's salary. This would also be helpful on the transfer market.

No guarantee that Buzzer Manager updates with the new system. We should also get a break on developing draftees.