BuzzerBeater Forums

Let's not forget that the good thing about salary is that it is strongly related to player strength. If you put in an artificial cap on salary however, B3-participants will scramble for skills that are not reflected in salary, so player value at the top end (affordable only to savers, again) will then be determined by skills that are more weakly related to player strength - that is an undesirable artefact. Think of level 25+ drivers with level 15 primaries as the elite of the game, on all 5 positions... this would not be much "basketball" either, inspite of this year's NBA-MVP.

What probably could be done to slow down super-savers is to introduce negative interest on a user's cash. In effect, this would imply a softcap on savings, with the level of the softcap depending on the saving rate (i.e. again favouring small countries). The fan survey already has a bit of this, but probably too little. Not sure whether von Hayek would have liked that though ;-)

I don't really know, he didn't study BB economý :D

Well there are some C's and PF's who are around 12-13 driving and yes, they sell for elite prices at this moment and without salary cap.

And yes, it will continue to be something good that salary is related to player strength. But that's not an issue.
I mean, right now you do see that most top managers do fight to get the more complete players on the market and that's not issue, and yes, right now top managers do seems to be looking for players with a lot of skills not reflected in salary for every level of player salary segment. And that's a good thing, since those player do require more training time and thus, are *better* than the others. In Basketball terms, they are also good.

If what you try to say is that B3 participants will push the price of very complete players too high, I'll say that's already happening but not only B3 long-term-planner-participants are the ones doing it.

The issue I see with the negative interest is that it will benefit small country managers a lot when compared when big countries (like you pointed out yourself). Anyway, the idea of negative interest rate do have benefits in his own right because it will slow down the savings that small countries are now getting, this will help a little to make a more *democratic* market. So, even if is not a really great idea to help solve the B3 problem, it does have arguments to be used for another purpose.

As I mentioned several times before, slowing down the super savers doesn't solve the problem ... it only means they need for example 10 season instead of 5 to save enough money ...

As far as I know this game tries to follow NBA as much as possible and if I'm right there are salary caps, but I haven't heard about negative interest on savings yet.

Negative interest on savings is an interesting idea.

10 seasons to save up instead of 5 implies a flat interest rate across the board. What about a tiered negative interest rate, with a higher rate correlating to a higher balance? Eventually, the negative interest will prevent your balance from crossing a certain threshold.

Try to specify the idea by some formulas and keep in mind that it could be as simple as possible to be easy to understand by every user. I think it would be too complicated so that it can work unless it's like hard cap on savings. Hard cap on savings I can imagine as e.g. 30M (just an example) cap for cash reserves. After you reach the cap you are not increasing your cash reserves even if you make weekly profit.

Last edited by rwystyrk at 5/18/2011 11:00:03 AM

30 Million, lol

How about people who have around 100 million now? that will not be fair.. also negative interest is unfair too because players earned this money fair and square by trading and managing their team effectively to reduce salaries and in same time win..

also, I could win last 3-4 B3 competitions easily with that cash but i choosed not to do so.. now, you are punishing people like me and just take away their hard earned cash?? is this fair? I guess it is not fair.

they earned this cash.. you can put cap on the cash that they will earn in future but not the cash they already earned fair and square by long time planning and sacrificing not wining competeions in the past to save that cash.. that's why a negative interest will not be fair at all...
I f i knew there will be a negative interest applied, i would have choosen to win last B3 competitions instead of saving for example..

again, you will be punishing people who try to plan a long term plan by applying rules like these....

how would you feel if you are in my position and the negative interest will take away a million or something each week from your hard earned - long term cash? its totally unfair..

well, that's my opinion on the matter, thanks

Well, every time BBs make a change in the rules there is people how is negative affected by them but a lot more is benefited. When they decided to stop inflation I was severely damaged by it, and I said something pretty similar to what you're saying today. Many told me something like "You think this will continue forever? You should have foreseen it. This can not continue". I wasn't happy but I understood that the changes were trying to solve a problem and, in the future it will be better for everyone.

Do you have 100M in savings? If that's so I will recommend you to start buying good players now and trying to win now instead of trying to do it in a future where you might no able to make a efficient use of your money, or you will prevented from even having it. But it's your call, just remember you heard a warning and you were aware of the discussion.




Last edited by Zero, the Magi. at 5/18/2011 12:31:09 PM

I guess it is not fair.

Is it fair to the rest of the teams in the world that teams from uncompetitive and unbalanced D.1 from small countries can generate money at an exponential level?

I don't care about this debate much either way and am not advocating for any changes. The BB's can let this issue fester to the point that the B3 is even less interesting then national team competitions (maybe it's there now). Either way, irony is off the charts for you to mention anything about unfairness, especially after being in the position to say this:

I could win last 3-4 B3 competitions easily with that cash but i choosed not to do so

..well, the BB's don't think this is the case or is an issue so you're in good shape to win the B3 whenever you like. Oh..and you're somehow a martyr too.

Last edited by brian at 5/18/2011 2:41:18 PM

I knew this would happen since season 9. When I explained this, some users said that not true because this kind of teams never won a B3.

Seems like a lot of problems were predicted before they became bigger issues. Why wait to nip these issues in the bud until they blowup or ppl are too vested in their long term plans to make unfair changes? It's too late now.

As I recommend for every change it could be announced at least 1 season in advance. So I expect any chance no earlier than at start of season 18. If there are some changes you still have time to win season 17 B3 and probably even season 18, 19 depending how the changes would look like.
The best way would be to let all savers fight for B3 title season 17 and starting from season 18 it could be more interesting competition.