BuzzerBeater Forums

And if you read my suggestions portion, I said it could be tiered accordingly, but their revenue should be tiered as well. There is plenty of man hours in the day to work through that one.

As far as the arenas, there are threads that talk about the arena. But the reality is, if you have a "soft cap" which is known, it doesn't matter how big your stadium is - you may not fill it. There is nothing like a 10k people arena owner that can only get 6k people in it with a 10 PR guy.

If you're going to target anything, target huge arenas until player salaries catch up with the revenue. That's the actual issue here.

I wonder how salaries will catch up anytime soon with the introduction of potential and skill caps. Inside players salaries are getting up there, but guards are hitting their caps while their salaries are still relatively low.

If you're going to target anything, target huge arenas until player salaries catch up with the revenue. That's the actual issue here.

I wonder how salaries will catch up anytime soon with the introduction of potential and skill caps. Inside players salaries are getting up there, but guards are hitting their caps while their salaries are still relatively low.

I think potential caps are pretty high. People get scared of '6th man' and 'starter', but I suspect these can easily be trained to a 10k salary, judging by the fact that a lot of those all-star NT players are still below the cap.

And if you read my suggestions portion, I said it could be tiered accordingly, but their revenue should be tiered as well. There is plenty of man hours in the day to work through that one.

As far as the arenas, there are threads that talk about the arena. But the reality is, if you have a "soft cap" which is known, it doesn't matter how big your stadium is - you may not fill it. There is nothing like a 10k people arena owner that can only get 6k people in it with a 10 PR guy.

With season ticket holders giving you a bonus in week 1, there is no need to soften anything.

There already is a soft cap that works through season ticket holders. Whether it functions properly or not is a different issue. The problem here is not the soft cap. The problem is that top clubs cannot get players with high enough salaries, therefore they save too much of their weekly income, which obviously inflates transfer prices.

The problem I have with the current proposition for gate receipt taxes is that it targets the 'average' top team, while in reality 'the average' team doesn't really exist. So you risk ending up with a policy that is, in effect, suboptimal for everyone. It doesn't tax half of the teams sufficiently, and overtaxes the other half.

Apparently some are already hitting the cap. I suspect one of my gaurds, w/ salary of 30k, has hit the limit, and his skills total around 80 (not including ft and stam).

Apparently some are already hitting the cap. I suspect one of my gaurds, w/ salary of 30k, has hit the limit, and his skills total around 80 (not including ft and stam).

The cap is not dependent on position. So $30,000 for guard will work the same way as $30,000 for a center.

Also, plenty of NT players train at full speed with $30,000+ salaries, so I am pretty sure the cap is higher than that.

Pretty sure based on what exactly?

Inside players are training higher, but overall they have a lot of just 4 skills, while a guard needs a lot of 6 skills.

I agree with the others that changes of this magnitude should be given more advance notice, but I appreciate that you are addressing these issues now rather than waiting for finances to get totally out-of-control.

Two questions...

1. Will the new attendance formula be less influenced by the result of the last game? My biggest issue with attendance is that its so focused on your last game result and should be more based on a longer-term average.

2. Have you considered any sort of automatic feedback mechanism that would adjust income on a more frequent period. Measure the salaries, income and cash on hand of teams in the various leagues and adjust attendance or union percentage accordingly?

And one suggestion...

1. You might consider changing top league income based on the size of the countries user base. For example, there is a disproportionate number of I clubs, because all the small countries have no II leagues and those teams have the potential to make huge income streams. If income was scaled according to user base size (not linearly, but maybe using a log function or something...that would reduce a lot of the teams making huge profits and creating run-away inflation.

For example income in various countries might scale by...

Italy (3200 users) -> log 3200 = 3.5 (income in larger countries fairly similar -- maybe there could even be a cap)
USA (900 users) -> log 900 = 2.95
Brazil (500 users) -> log 500 = 2.70
...
Bulgaria (160 users) -> log 160 = 2.20 (top league teams in medium countries might be make more like II money)
...
Japan (13 users) -> log 13 = 1.11 (top teams from smaller counties wound be making considerably less and thus wouldn't be contributing to the inflation effect).

Just a thought...

Steve
Bruins