BuzzerBeater Forums

1) Who'll pay the salary ?

As can be concluded from the message I've wrote, the one who whould have the player for that game will be the one who will pay his salary.

I think that a new suggestion is needed to be set here.
Why does the salary is upon a date in a week?
Why not setting the payment upon the game played, or more precisely owned?
Each game a team owns a player will cost the portion of games at that week.
Meaning, due to the fact that in a week there are 3 games, each game wiill cost 1/3 of the player's salary.
I think it is a better definition, and works great with my suggestion.

If you bought a player, you want it available right so. If you want use a player for a game, sell it two hours later. In fact, even 30 minutes should be enough 99% of the time.

Well, when there are holes, they are needed to be handled. 1% or less.
And again, I think that my suggestion here answered all.
In case you find more holes, please write so.

Each game a team owns a player will cost the portion of games at that week.
Meaning, due to the fact that in a week there are 3 games, each game wiill cost 1/3 of the player's salary.

there is also a problem, so it is ceaper to not assign a scrimmage, or didn't they count? But then people in the cup would get 50% higher salarys, and at least i am rarely play player three times a week.
If you then say, just the games they play, then you will have collectors of players, maybe from special NT or prospect from them cause they only cost the buying.

And you have to process the salary three times a week.

Well, when there are holes, they are needed to be handled. 1% or less.

till now i never heard of the one percent to be happen. And when you look at the server lags, you probadly see why the transfers run at the lowest priority so they are freezed first and processed after the games this should be also the case when the server catch up the games(not 100% sure about it, but it makes sense in basic it infrastructures).

The other case is more common, that you buy a player 0,5-1 hour before the game for the game, and can not put him into the lineup cause he didn't come in time.

there is also a problem, so it is ceaper to not assign a scrimmage, or didn't they count? But then people in the cup would get 50% higher salarys, and at least i am rarely play player three times a week.
If you then say, just the games they play, then you will have collectors of players, maybe from special NT or prospect from them cause they only cost the buying.

And you have to process the salary three times a week.

I guess my english wasn't at its best.
Let's try with an example...

1) First let's speak idealy on a week with 3 games each, where all games are "important" (league and cup).
Now, a player played (on team-A) at the first game and had not been listed to the second (due to injury OR coach desicion).
Then he was transfered to team-B.
The result of it should be team-A pays 2/3 of its salary, team-B plays 1/3.
The computation could still be calculated once - at the same time it is caclulated today (and the payment time will not change either).

2) Now let's mix things up - now let's consider this week there is a scrimage instead one of those games, who should pay for that game?
Well, it can be defined in different ways, but I suggest that the team who will owns the consecutive game (which will be an "important" one) will pay this part.
A second option is not to count them unless all games are scrimages at that week (although I think that there is no salary payment in those weeks).

As you mentioned in your other paragraph, there are corner cases.
Due to that it will be good to handle them.
In any case, paying for a full week although you got him for 0 games that week (can happen), is something better be fixed.