BuzzerBeater Forums

Do you understand that with this salary bidding based system people get exactly the same player with half the salary (for example). Getting all the players with half salary (bidding when everyone else has their players chosen already), creates a salary cap mismatch. This is a lot worse than the current system.
With 2 team you get 2 incomes and 2 salary caps. You can bid salarys for twise the amount you could with one team. Seeing a good deal and getting that player signed to your additional team and then trading that player to your original team for the same salary but worse player is how you use your system to cheat. Noone can even suspect you of cheating, as noone really knows what players are worth any more because of no stable salary formula.
As it comes to cheating now. Players themselves must keep an eye out for the cheaters. I think in Estonia we have rooted out most of the cheating teams. Occasionally some pop up again, but they are caught pretty quickly. As this is a relativly slow game, none really have the patientce to wait 5 seasons to start to cheat.
BB's have stated that daytrading is a part of this game. It's hard to do effectivly, but some manage to do it. Btw, listing high and fishing for a newbie bid is not daytrading. The only way to regulate this would be bigger fines. I have had a lot of teams in my bookmarks, that try to use the listing idiotically high tactic (you should be familiar with this tactic). Some teams even have their whole teams for sale all the time. Fishing for that one bad click. This also should be punishable by somekind of not sold tax. But that's another story altogether.

Too much text for me to start reading right now, but I think there is merit in the overall concept. I will try to read this thread later and comment on the actual suggestion. Overall, I think the player skills should remain the most important aspect in determining player salaries, however the game could benefit if especially the top players and their top salaries had some market-driven element.

Too much text for me to start reading right now, but I think there is merit in the overall concept. I will try to read this thread later and comment on the actual suggestion. Overall, I think the player skills should remain the most important aspect in determining player salaries, however the game could benefit if especially the top players and their top salaries had some market-driven element.

There are multiple problems with the suggested feature. The most obvious one: a server hiccup may mean that you may be able to luck out and end up with a player at a bargain salary for the next 10 seasons or so. Absolutely unacceptable.

I loved the idea of the salary of the player be influenced by his market price. I think this would help solving the problem of over-salary players. The amount of times that the most expensive players in this game have been sold is too high and I think that this system would balance their salaries and make them more affordable for the biggest teams and consequently making them fight for the player in the future and not only for the Cup finals or Playoff finals.

About the other ideas I'm not so sure, but is a good starting point for discussion.

In general good suggestion Wolph

a server hiccup may mean that you may be able to luck out and end up with a player at a bargain salary for the next 10 seasons or so. Absolutely unacceptable.

This could be solved by introducing a blindness period before the end of the auction, for example 8 hours before the deadline new maximum bids are stored by the system but no longer displayed. Therefore it would not make sense any longer to wait for the last minutes of the auction before making a bid. Which other problems do you see?

You understand this doesn't really change the situation, it just changes the location of the potential hiccup. It will always make sense to bid in the last moment, whether this is the "last moment before the deadline" or the "last moment before bids go blind".

The same problem is bound to occur in multiple different situations: the game economy has both a cycle and a trend, and I don't think replicating those issues into salary is the way to go. As in, it is one thing to be able to spend less on a one-time lump sum payment, and it's completely different to spend less on a weekly basis for the same type of player. The second one has a much stronger effect. While the suggestions are not without merit, it will be difficult (to me: next to impossible) to implement this system without introducing unwanted competitive imbalances.

Ultimately, the idea behind all of these is to have an economy where the best players are paid top dollar and teams can afford them. This was also the idea behind the salary calibration that was introduced several seasons ago. While it's questionable whether the calibration is appropriate or not, the best players in the game currently cost about 90% of the income of a top division team. Technically speaking, it is possible to build a team around such a player by picking cheap role-players off the market -- though I guess what matters is that no-one has really tried to do it, so those guys still keep going around.