BuzzerBeater Forums

Point 1:
If this is the current "problem statement", then I don't think it's clear there is a systemic problem to be solved.

Thanks for Big Njord's direction of thinking what is the problem we want to solve.

Here are some problem statement candidates.

1. The market value of high salary player is low.
I don't think the merchandise bonus will help significantly, since the amount of bonus is little and it's not enough. I associate this problem with unemployment in midlife with high salary base. It seems that it is not easy to solve it. Maybe changing the game engine is the best way to make them valuable.

2. The league competitiveness is not enough and burning money to keep 5 to 7 super star players is overpowered.
Similar to candidate 1, the effect of bonus won't be significant. I suggest raise the over-extension tax and decrease training exemption, keep the monster away.

3. The "unbalanced" team (such as 1 high salary and 4 to 7 low salary players) is too weak.
I believe if the total salary are the same, then the "balanced" team is better than "unbalanced" team. If this problem, the "unbalanced" team is too weak, is true, then the merchandise bonus is a great idea, in my opinion.

Last edited by little Guest at 6/18/2022 9:35:53 PM

What if the top salary player doesn't play league game and only play cup games and scrimmages? If the team still get the bonus, then maybe it is not fair. There is no such thing as a free lunch.

So that's why I'm not against giving more revenue. But I would say that revenue should go to all teams (scaled by division - hence the TV contract mechanism) to let them do as they see fit.

I like the idea of making the TV contracts higher. Additionally, I do think it would do well to reward teams based on the performance of their top player (though not simply by salary). There are already merchandise rewards for having players on the leaderboards and based on their performance. I think it would be a good idea to increase these rewards for the best player on each team.

Exhaustion should bring about an end to the short rosters (at least rosters of 5 or 6). In my experience with it, you have to run at least 7 players and even running 7 is very risky. If anything goes wrong with substitution patterns, an injury, or a foul out you are in danger of losing a huge amount of performance. I currently run 7 as my roster was primarily put together before the changes. In the future I will build a team of 8 main players.

As for teams affording 3-5 very high salary players (which was mentioned by other players), I am one of them. The total salary for my roster is a few hundred thousand per week above anyone in the NBBA other than Apex. It is completely unsustainable for my team and nor do I think it should be sustainable. However, it will always be a thing and what is required to win at the top levels (especially b3) so long as there is no harsher penalty for having such a high salaried team. I would gladly accept a penalty that makes it near impossible to go over certain amounts in salary and would reduce to 1-2 stars on my team surrounded by other players. But since it is currently viable to do so, I am going to do it in order to have the best chance at success in BBM, NBBA, and the cup (and also as I enjoy helping the NT).

As for teams affording 3-5 very high salary players (which was mentioned by other players), I am one of them.

I wasn't criticizing the way you or anyone else run their team, I was just criticizing the idea that giving you more money will discourage how you run your team. I think the logic in the first few paragraphs of the OP is sound, a 15% rebate for the highest salary on the team is fair for everyone, leaves room for strategy and advantage or mistakes, and increases the value of training while raising the ceiling on salary-efficient players and multi-skilled players, as you noted. I could see quite a few people learning to enjoy helping an NT somewhere in order to maximize the salary relief.

Makes sense. I actually think a better system would stop teams from running as high of a payroll as I do, but I like your points.

Some sort of cap (or penalties/taxes above a certain treshold) makes perfect sense too.
Though there's several interesting points/ways to make changes that have been mentioned already, it's a matter of trying to find the better way to do it.

To be honest, I disagree with a lot of what is said here.

The idea right now might not be perfect. But BB is trying to fix a problem everyone knows exist.
Not that long ago there was a forum post here about one of the better players in BB not being sold or sold for a low amount of money, because his salary was to high. Like Alonso said this problem will also increase further just because we are going to need deeper roster which means that teams with low amount of players with high salary will be penalized. This only further decreases the higher salary players value. Which means that training a player will get less profitable if you want to sell him and make a direct profit on training.

Giving a boost to merchandise sales based on the salary will be some sort of solution for that because basically the net income difference between a player of 150K and 250K will be lower than it was before, which will probably increase the value of a player who has 200K salary. But the same thing can be said for a player of 100K salary for a div3 team over a player of 50K salary. So this could increase the value of a lot of players in turn making training more profitable.
And it makes sense as well, a player like lebron sells more merchandise than a player like kyle kuzma. Yes you could say that that is because of performance not because of his salary but doing that would mean that a player who played in the bb3 and played for a div1 championship multiple times would give back more money than a player who is just as good but is trained from the start by a player who started in div4 which would not be good for game balance.

Changing the salary formula or adding a max salary for example might also help, but are a lot harder to code like they said and this is something that can help as soon as next season and give some sort of a solution.
Just giving teams more money on other ways won't fix that problem in a way it does here.

The fatique adjustment which will be implemented next season will discourage players to get 3 stars while the money adjustment will encourage players to buy 1 or 2.

What it does is:
1. Increases the value for higher salary players, not just 250K salary players but what is seen as high salary player on every level.
2. increase profitablilty on training high level players
3. In combination with the fatigue adjustment the game will be more balanced.

I think it's a great idea, maybe it's not perfect but it will help.
I've also seen people saying the percentage should be higer. that could be better, or that it should be the highest 2 players giving a 15-10% boost of their salary. Which could potentially be better but I would say start with 1 player of 15% see how it goes next season and adjust the season after.