BuzzerBeater Forums

I am very surprised to be honest that-usually very carefully worded-news announcement, even mentioned competiveness in the salary floor paragraph.

The argument that leagues get more competitive that way, is - at least in my opinion - nonsense. Raising the bar for everybody does not change much.

As I tried to show with my example, I am in the same position as before, the teams competing don't get hit and the teams trying to catch up, get their profits cut in half.

Great for them - now that the league is "more competitive" it takes much longer to develop the team to a decent level, which of course raises excitement and fun...... NOT. (not joke)

I totally agree, it makes no sense.

I does make sense as it discourages tanking. I think the news post is clear that this will possibly be tweaked. I think the fundamental problem were 300k-350k teams playing 700k teams in D1 and similar values for other levels (although there is much less difference between 50k and 100k than there is between 300k and 700k.

I does make sense as it discourages tanking. I think the news post is clear that this will possibly be tweaked. I think the fundamental problem were 300k-350k teams playing 700k teams in D1 and similar values for other levels (although there is much less difference between 50k and 100k than there is between 300k and 700k.

The news post says that the tweaking, if necessary, will be to increase furthermore the salary floor.

But the salary floor's initial increase, already creates injustices, without solving neither competiveness or tanking.
It just punishes those who are able to be competitive, with low salaries.

I can't see how a newly promoted D1 team that wants to tank, will not do so, for 50-60k less profit weekly.
We're still talking about +300k profit per week, even if it has a three 1k player roster therefore it doesn't get cup win bonuses on top...

At the other hand, the D1 team that didn't tank, stayed competitive and remained in the division, while paying 350k in salaries, will now be forced to lose 60k per week, +800k in one season.


Both tanking and competiveness cannot be dealt with in any remotely fair way, when not related with results(especially blow outs), primarily.

I can't see how a newly promoted D1 team that wants to tank, will not do so, for 50-60k less profit weekly.

Well the tanking teams are the only ones benefiting from a lower floor, all the teams that were already close to the league average are not impacted in any way, so I don't understand what's the big problem. They even increased the promotion money that in D1 will amount to 400k-500k (don't know if it's 50% or 40% extra)...so it looks to me newly promoted tanking teams are largely unaffected compared to before. Do the math: 55k*12 weeks=660k, that's mostly covered by the extra promotion money.

If you want to stay at the floor you make 50k less per week than you were doing last season. You still make a lot more money than everyone else in your league and assuming you pay for some players (you really should do that if you are below the salary floor at least you'd be paying for assets instead of giving away money for free) perhaps your opponents will not walk all over you every single game.

Besides I suspect in the end D1 floor will be increased and the others left alone. They can also just tweak the Fan Survey so that tanking is hit via lower gate receipts too. I think they didn't go this way both because the floors were too low anyway and because it will require more time to write a code to identify tanking teams and hit them with lower income...

Last edited by Lemonshine at 2/18/2016 9:08:46 AM

That's my point exactly.
The salary floor change does not affect tanking in any disheartening way.
Therefore it does not affect neither ammasing large amounts of money( i still can't understand why that, in EVERY case must be a bad thing), nor enhances competiveness since tankers gonna tank cause it still pays...

They can also just tweak the Fan Survey so that tanking is hit via lower gate receipts too. I think they didn't go this way both because the floors were too low anyway and because it will require more time to write a code to identify tanking teams and hit them with lower income...

Yep!
I've read some more detailed suggestions you've made on the subject elsewhere and i have to say that i totally agree with the way you've approached it and the proposed solutions you've offered!

I does make sense as it discourages tanking. I think the news post is clear that this will possibly be tweaked. I think the fundamental problem were 300k-350k teams playing 700k teams in D1 and similar values for other levels (although there is much less difference between 50k and 100k than there is between 300k and 700k.

Discouraging tanking while crippling new teams at the same time is a pretty bad compromise.

I can't find a team right now that is ~16 weeks old, but I am pretty sure most of those teams have not finished their stadium and a pretty bad roster, that does not fit the salary floor criteria.

How would a good starting strategy for a new team in DIV II-III look like right now? I don't know, but I am pretty sure the salary floor is a huge handicap for beginners in the first few months.

Discouraging tanking while crippling new teams at the same time is a pretty bad compromise.

Stop with this argument, it makes no sense. The floor does not apply for 16 weeks, people start with larger arenas, prizes for promotion are higher, what else do you want for new managers? No floor for 8 seasons? 10x promotion prizes? 10k seat arena to begin the game? Come on let's be reasonable, this one about "new managers" is a completely ridiculous argument.

I can't find a team right now that is ~16 weeks old, but I am pretty sure most of those teams have not finished their stadium and a pretty bad roster, that does not fit the salary floor criteria.

New players make exactly $0 less than before since the floor does not apply. New players also have ca 1k extra seats compared to before, which, believe it or not, generate extra income from the get go. So complaining because they make, maybe, 20k less per week well into their second season and they have more than 1 season without floor seems puzzling.

Let's check some numbers shall we?
Salary floor = -420k
Minimum staff = -6k
TV = 195k
Merch = 85k
Net = -156k

To make a profit in D1 in England you need to make 156k per week. Now, at max prices (20,70, 200, 4000) the initial arena will pay you $163,760 every week. So even if you have been messing around and did nothing in 16 weeks to expand your arena, even if you are in D1 in a micronation, you will make a profit.

Off course if you're not in D1 you will actually be better off, so again what are we talking about?

How would a good starting strategy for a new team in DIV II-III look like right now? I don't know, but I am pretty sure the salary floor is a huge handicap for beginners in the first few months.

a) there is no floor for the first 4 months
b) you should build the arena, same as before, except you start with a larger arena than before
c) beginners usually don't tank. It's the experienced managers who do. If they don't tank, it's unlikely they will be affected by the salary floor.

And finally, I would like to see some statistics about teams below the salary floor and not tanking.


Last edited by Lemonshine at 2/18/2016 1:25:45 PM

I can't deny BB's efforts to bring a more equitable economic system to the game. Yet, this change will cause harm to the payroll efficient teams rather than punishing tanking teams. Someone who wants to tank would still do it as they have nothing to lose but a small amount of money compared to their profits. Tanking still makes you a significant amount of money and the managers will keep on taking advantage of it. There must be better ways to punish them while you make sure other managers are not affected by your decision.

Last season, I managed to make it to the finals with my payroll below the salary floor. With some players up and down in their salaries, my salary total remained same after the preseason update and I will be paying $30.000 each week basically for nothing if I don't add a new player to my roster. I am in a rebuilding process for some seasons now and don't have intention of improving my roster until my trainees become ready to compete at top level. I already loose each second I don't spend my money. It's my choice and the inflation in the market is simply killing me. So, in addition to that, why am I forced to spend money in this overspending market just to reach the salary floor? Instead, I believe I should be awarded for being able to compete against expensive teams with my humble team and do not deserve to be treated almost as same as tanking teams in terms of fan survey when I lost against a team that pay twice my team for salaries.

Can't write a long answer now, but there are a few things you mention, that in my opinion are wrong. Maybe tomorrow...