BuzzerBeater Forums

I know Hattrick, this method solved problem in HT.

how? when? in what way?
I'd be delighted to see a simple solution like this solving a serious issue... but really, in HT it didn't help in any way.

In HT the max wage is 300.000(only one/two) players have it, but here it can be even 680.000(O.o).
In HT the max. money you can get from full 200.000 stadium is about 600.000-800.000.I don't know the max. here, but i know it can't be over 600.000

Cheers
Oh, and i am scout in 3 different countries in HT

^
This is the answer. Every team is affected in exactly the same way.

if you buy a player for 900,000 and he has a 40,000 salary as a long term purchase the extra 40,000 (bonus) is a small percentage of the total and manageable. This won't effect anything in a dramatic fashion.

if you buy a player for 400,000 or more and he has a 300,00 salary as a short term divine transaction the extra 600,000 is a larger percentage of the total and will be more painful. This will effect divine purchases in a dramatic fashion I think.

just to avoid repeating myself again and again... (178639.11)

I understand what you are saying, for those determined to use this tactic it will actually make it easier to perform the divine trick as the player value drops. I would imagine that any tactic designed to discourage this "trick" will also, in effect, drive the purchase price of these types of players down. I still think that adding a 1 week salary plus signing salary will, overall, discourage more managers than it will encourage in the long term.

Well, for most problems the solution is simple...salary cap...which should be tied to week revenue...

Or in numbers...this week my total revenue is 424k, and my player salaries are 261k, so with salary cap of 424k i can buy player only up to 163k salary...
We cold put staff salaries also in the equation...and those are 59k plus 261k from players which comes to 320k total and that leaves me with 104k space for purchasing new player...

So then no one would buy players that they cant afford...

This is such a long thread and I just found it 10 minutes ago so I fully admit I skim read a lot so what I say probably has already been covered.

The Problem
Teams make stupid and unrealistic additions of "mutant" players just for a few games and then get rid of those players.

The worst example was the B3 which was so bad they had to change the rules. But it still happens in the Cup, for relegation games and and to win championships. Is this realistic? Can you imagine your local team going out the week before the playoffs and hiring Lebron for a week? Rubbish. It is pathetic and ruins the game. We all want to win but seeing a weak team suddenly open the checkbook the week before the playoffs and suddenly have triple the wages of the rest of the league just spoils all the realism and makes the game silly. Think this doesn't happen? Just look at the ABBL this year or my division where teams have just bought a championship. Nothing against them, they have used a "clever" strategy, one that is clearly stronger than having a good team the whole season.

Is this the model we really want to promote? Tank for a couple of seasons with a pathetic roster losing almost every game but raking in the money. Then explode and win the championship. Promote and win again. Do we really want to see 75% of the teams each season tanking?

The Solution
I did read a list of 4 solutions and I think all of them could be implimented very easily.
1) Game shape. Every time a player is sold they could lose two levels of game shapes. It makes sense that if a player had to move from Alaska to Saudi Arabia and play there they wouldn't be in their best shape. I could show you some $300,000 guys who get sold once or twice every week. Once their GS is pitiful will they still get sold and be worth it to their owners? Easy.
2) Minimum contracts. Even in the NBA there is a minimum 10 day contract but that is usually for the worst players. Real players have a minumum of 1 year. I wouldn't want that as someone said it could lock people into bad deals for too long and penalise new players but perhaps a minimum of 2-4 weeks would be fine.
3) Increased Playoff Cutoff date. In the NBA it is the week after the All-Star game. After that you are fairly much stuck with your team. How is that bad? It requires planning. It would be then for the last 3 weeks of the regular season and avoid the crazy last minute instant team fixes we see every season.
4) Have a cup cutoff date. No player can play in any cup game after the 4th round unless they have been with the team for at least two weeks.

This problem sucks and really makes the game look stupid. Tank for a season (totally unrealistic). Hire some mutants for 2 weeks to win relegation. Then be mediocre of 3/4 of a season and squeek into 4th place. Spend all the money you saved to hire some mutants for 2 weeks and win the championship. Repeat.

Is this how we really want the game to look?

Last edited by yodabig at 4/13/2011 9:23:24 PM

I like your solutions.

Nice, but if they try to put that in game it would be a long time before they can fix all the bugs and make BB run smoothly...

Salary cap still looks as simpler and much better solution...

What if you got important game and a really important player gets injured in meaningless game before that...these new rules of yours would make impossible to buy a replacement before game and for player to play that game...

I don't like salary cap in form you suggested, I have had almost 1,3M player salaries since start of February without any sell or purchase. And I'm below -300k weekly (revenues are around 1M).

Last edited by rwystyrk at 4/14/2011 1:25:32 AM

Yeah, i understand your concern...but what if you apply that salary cap only on keeping you from buying more players and not to cut players you have trained in your team...