BuzzerBeater Forums

My taxes supported your promotion bonus! Get off my lawn, lousy hippie!

I would not exactly agree with this view. Since it would be known that staff would not be changed that much and would know that they will have for example a coach for 5 seasons, they would wait for an appropriate price for him. Sure, at the start the higher division (richer) teams would buy staff for more, but other teams would wait and not buy. Therefore they would get the wanting staff for less money. That would be a chain reaction I think. But now one would buy a trainer level 5 (salary 16k) for 300k+, level 6 (salary 19k) for 600k etc...And they have to do it every three season because of the increased salaries. So how do you think that the new system would hurt lower division teams? In all logic it would be the quite opposite. I do not see a lower divison team who can afford to pay 700k for a coach every three seasons.

Wouldn't be '' To change '' instead '' To chance '' ?

I would not exactly agree with this view. Since it would be known that staff would not be changed that much and would know that they will have for example a coach for 5 seasons, they would wait for an appropriate price for him. Sure, at the start the higher division (richer) teams would buy staff for more, but other teams would wait and not buy. Therefore they would get the wanting staff for less money. That would be a chain reaction I think. But now one would buy a trainer level 5 (salary 16k) for 300k+, level 6 (salary 19k) for 600k etc...And they have to do it every three season because of the increased salaries. So how do you think that the new system would hurt lower division teams? In all logic it would be the quite opposite. I do not see a lower divison team who can afford to pay 700k for a coach every three seasons.

You may very well be right. Lowering demand would lower the prices (assuming that supply didn't change with the rest of this, which seems unlikely).

But, I can tell you, I would *definitely* pay more for a trainer if I knew I wouldn't have to replace him for 5 seasons. And I suspect everyone here would do the same. So prices would definitely go up, which hurts the lower division teams more (before they could buy a guy and hope that they would have promoted by the time they need to replace him and buy a new one... with this, they need all that cash up front).

Like I said. Yes I agree that FIRST everybody(read: Richer, higher division clubs) would pay a lot more..But when the richer teams would pay more..But as more teams would have the wanted staff, the lower the demand will be and the lower would be the fees, since the teams would not have to replace as much staff as they used to. But the BB would have to add a little more staff to buy, since the demand would be with the change of rules offcourse FIRSTLY much higher and the first Fees would- as you and I agree be very high. But with a couple of weeks of the new rules, the fees would drop a lot and the lower division teams would benefit in comparison with the higher ones. That is just my opinion.

And yes, It should say CHANGE instead of CHANCE, i misstiped but cannot edit it, because it is a Poll.

so basically you want to give everybody the same staff, and don't want that to be a strategic decision anymore since everybody would get a cheap high level staff member and don't need to carew then about him afterwards. In this case we could remove it completly in my eyes.

Last edited by CrazyEye at 12/6/2011 4:46:10 PM

One change I would like to have is the possibility to "retire" Players to be your Staff after they are for example 33 Years old

I do not see a "strategic effect" in something like this. Also it is MUCH easier for a higher divison team, with much more money to get great staff..A level 6 staff with an affordable price for a III. division team is almost impossible. And for a lower division team should be a good level staff affordable to continue playing and developing young talents. I am just saying that 2% increase per week for staff is just unrealistic and illogical. Do not get me wrong, I understand what you are saying and now see why some people are against it. It is a more complex problem, which would need a little additions like decreasing level etc....

The 2% raise is a simple solution to give a little more "economics" to the game and I think BB would require a different way..To evolve. Maybe it is because this season there were no new options added:)

I agree with noxx here..It would be a great idea...But like I said the solution would have to be more complex..The staff should have sublevels like players and their pay should base on their level..Not that some level 5 staff has a salary of 14k and another 40k..It makes no sense whatsoever. We should be able to have a coach which has a heart for the club:P

Last edited by Icce at 12/6/2011 5:06:52 PM

I do not see a "strategic effect" in something like this. Also it is MUCH easier for a higher divison team, with much more money to get great staff..A level 6 staff with an affordable price for a III. division team is almost impossible.

the strategic effect of it, is that actually better isn't better. In my eyes level 6 and 7 trainers, are bad investment since many people think i need the best there ... But actually they are hurting themself with it, the extra training is very little and the absic investment insane, and through the high buying price you had to keep him till he had a huge salary.

Another strategic element is the calculation when to buy a new coach, if you pay 50k for a level 4 coach with 16k salary it is easy to see that buying him every week new is a bad decision. Keeping him 30 weeks would be a fault too, smart managers or mathematically skilled managers could reduce cost with a "perfect" timing in the replacement cycle.

The replacement cycle, shouldn't be to long to make the option to change it a valid game decision, and high level staff for low prices without the need for replacement would make it a one time decision and then forget about the "staff options"(ok maybe switching PR in the PO), and also makes low level staff unactractive.

And for a lower division team should be a good level staff affordable to continue playing and developing young talents.

you could easily do this with level 4, even U21 teams are reachable with it even when i would suggest for such missions level 5 trainers. I have a level 4 trainer, and many of the old mostly not rich team in my league too, through my bough U21 player i scanning the list for a level 5 one from time to time.

Another strategic element is the calculation when to buy a new coach, if you pay 50k for a level 4 coach with 16k salary it is easy to see that buying him every week new is a bad decision. Keeping him 30 weeks would be a fault too, smart managers or mathematically skilled managers could reduce cost with a "perfect" timing in the replacement cycle.

I do that..I have created an Excell program to help me do that, to compare the options etc.

then i believe you make you have a strategy on your staff managing ;)