BuzzerBeater Forums

This is a ridiculous solution to something that is not really a problem in the first place.

1) There were solutions (ploural).
2) Again, "amazingly" a team from the first division, that "amazingly" [I do like this word... :+)] are in this game since season-3, is against a new system for improving competativeness, and against a system that causes this disadvantage to those teams who started after the first few seasons.

As we can see, in Season 18 we have 7 teams that participated in the top league also in Season 13. What is more interesting is that the average team is getting younger (in terms of starting time, all teams are of course now older by five seasons), although the median team both during Season 13 and Season 18 started during Season 4.

I don't remember who was the one who brang a similar information about his top league (I think it was the ABBL).
But, then (as written here in the first message on this thread) I looked what happened to the teams who have been part of the teams that played on the first division on season-4, in order of understanding what have happened to them.

What had been seen, is that teams not been beaten by new teams, but where just leaving the game.

And I will repeat a main concept here:
In case that the first league teams are there solely due to better managers, and not (by any chance) due to the season they started playing at, then there is no reason why not to reset the teams' assets every few years.

And we wee how it is working, right?

your idea is sick, this is a sports simulation game,
I'm not building my financial foundations and later on focusing on training my players, knowing the fact that sooner or later there's going to happen something like a 'soft wipe'

You like the game - stay and play
You get bored - leave

People never play one game for longer that a given certain period of time that is why sometimes they leave because they get bored, or have their particular reasons.

1) As you are only being argueing against the first systme suggested and ignoring the second, I'll repeat it;
"Reset all team's assets every few seasons."

2) Regarding to the story about what will happen to a cap-system and a non-cap one;
Most of the players are built from the TL. Surely this is true in the higher leagues.

You get the same type of players (which is another thing that is needed to be changed) in the sense of skills they are when they are to the draft.

As such, the difference will stay on the money level and building a team.
In case the richer teams will want to compete against the top teams in their league, they will still bring better players (those who will cost more).
For that they will need to pay more, both for the players, and for the tax defined from the soft-cap.

Basically this is exactly what is happening in the NBA.
The large market teams spending above the soft-cap in order of competing with the best teams on the NBA.
Here, the meaning of that is that the differnece in assets will level up, and we will get a more competative game.

NO...
Soft cap will make them pay for any money paid above the salary cap (a cap that will be defined upon average assets on the capped league).
If they will stay below it, it means one of the following (or both):
1) Their players' value is below the average value in the league. Which make them not that strong team.
2) They paid more in the TL than other to acquire better players - meaning they lose money in the process, and made the game more competative for the new seasons to come.

And again, the full ignoring of any other option (like resetting assets once every few seasons).

Salary cap prevent to spend extra money to gain advantage.

Not true. the soft cap does allow to spend more, and to pay for is by tax that goes to the other teams in the league.
I suggest that you will read more about the subject. It is an interesting issue.

With salary cap old teams will buy players with better secondaries with the same salary as players in young teams but with worse secondaries.

With which money they will do that? With the same money that creates this advantage.
By that the revenue difference will get smaller.

In addition, as soft-cap can be defined as follows:
1) Player cost - how much did the player cost for the team who bought him.
PLUS
2) The total salaries going to the team's roster.
Due to that, this team will pay agina the tax of going over the soft-cap.
And by the hard-cap will not be able to create huge difference and will need to by smarter and not only by his economic advantage.

1) As you are only being argueing against the first systme suggested and ignoring the second, I'll repeat it;
"Reset all team's assets every few seasons."

It's impossible, so it's out of discussion.
And it's bad idea.

soft-cap.

My story was about hard cap. You talk about soft cap.
My answer is that soft cap in this game practically exists. But it's hidden in formula of wage. If You want to have player who has +1 in every primary skill, then his salary is higher by 50%. It works exactly the same as soft cap (with extra tax/penalty), bacause very often You have to pay 150% of salary instead of 100% for player, who has 104 skill points instead of 100. It's huge difference of salary in comparision to quality of player.
It's not so hard to beat stronger opponent (by using better tactic, enthusiasm managment, etc) if his players have 104 skill points and my players have 100 skill points. But it's veeeeeeeery hard to keep salaries by 50% higher. In this way advantage of older managers could be decreased quicker.

And we wee how it is working, right?

It works great in the NBA.
A small market like Cleveland got to the finals several times.
Boston (A hugh-market) had been on the buttom of the league for several years.
New-York, the largest market by far, had not been a contander for years.
etc...

The strike does not makes this system a bad one.
This is why they want to keep it. Even the teams from the bigger market knows that in the long run - a more competative league makes more income to the league.

They are arguing about the money split between the teams' owners and the players.
Totaly irrelevant to this discussion.

I'm not building my financial foundations and later on focusing on training my players, knowing the fact that sooner or later there's going to happen something like a 'soft wipe'

If you like the new competative system than stay.
If not then don't...

Those who are leaving the game are from two main groups:
1) Those who got bored from it. [Maybe a more competative game will change this]
2) Those who see that the game cannot be played with a real chance to compete [And here a more competative system will sure improve the situation].

(This is not for Pini to react.)

Everybody can checkhistory of my team. I started at the very end of Seson 6 in III.7, promoted in my first real season (7) and then was climbing the leader of II.4 in seasons 8,9,10 being in the stronger of II.4 conferences at that time, having great fun and frienldy rivalries as each rank in the standings mattered. That was at the old times when best BB players weren't fully trained, everybody good was still expanding and making profit and rosters relied heavily to who started when. in the third season in Div 2, purposefulness paid off and with some luck I broke the habit of demoted exDiv 1 team promoting back againg immediately and took his place. *

So in middle sized BB country it took me 4 seasons to get to the top. It shouldn't be much faster. There only can be 16 teams in the top league so everybody can't be there (at the same time) so playing in lower leagues should be fun too. When you are facing familiar faces, tough opposition to beat, you shouldn'd mind "being stuck" at your level when the league is compatitive. Having advantage is no fun. Baing in disadvantageous position and make something out of it, is what games should be about.

If you don't like challenge and want fast success, play single player games. Multiplayer sport games are for interacting and competing against real people.

That's about competitive club play. Nowhere is written you have to play and have only that way. if you don't want to put time and effort needed for next step, you can have fun other ways (some focus on domestic players, helping or leading NTs, saome even play only with their own draftees and generated players - or train only their own draftees, whatever). That's a path I picked - just saying if someone wonder why am I in Div 3 now - I'm comfortable with gradually losing ground cause to ad management based on how much effort I manage to put int o game while trying my sloppy play to not helping one team against other potentially influencing season outcome.

----------------------
Now, things are somewhat different, leagues got more crowded by decent managers thus in most countries competitive leagues can be found a level lower then before I guess. On the other hand top teams rosters are aging if not changed, competitive play doesn't produce much savings, there is nowhere to expand in terms of profits, potential hit most of the players, teams have to play sustainable way (or in cycles).

I used to agree that the (financial) gap between Div 1 and Div 2, i.e. what players and stuff those teams are able to sustainably keep, is too big and that probably haven't changed. But those things seem to solve themselves as the ancient readmillers (managers good to get to top league soone enough to profit from it but not good enough to get to the real top) eventually start to be bored by repetitive play, lose focus, quit the game completely, don't want to make necessyry roster changes (rebuilding), choose non-competitive play just enough to let newer teams knock them out of their places. Or the best new managers eventually close the gap regardless.

*Hey, one of my II.4 rivals was just runner-up in our Div 1, losing to B3 champion and well known rwystyrk. So it is doable, only matter of time, local specifics in a given country, conference composition and luck. Buzzerbeater as a sprint would lose a lot, peer pressure included.

1) As you are only being argueing against the first systme suggested and ignoring the second, I'll repeat it;
"Reset all team's assets every few seasons."

It's impossible, so it's out of discussion.
And it's bad idea.

Why is it "impossible"?
It is easy to implement, and will make the game more interesting.

In addition, I've also suggested "a sudden career ending-injury" for players.
By that, a richer team will lose (by definition of their players' value) a more expansive players, and the competativeness will be achived.

soft-cap.

My story was about hard cap. You talk about soft cap.
My answer is that soft cap in this game practically exists. But it's hidden in formula of wage. If You want to have player who has +1 in every primary skill, then his salary is higher by 50%. It works exactly the same as soft cap (with extra tax/penalty), bacause very often You have to pay 150% of salary instead of 100% for player, who has 104 skill points instead of 100. It's huge difference of salary in comparision to quality of player.

Somehow, the NBA thinks different (as the salary argument you brang could be implyied to the NBA as well), and finds the caps needed for improving competativeness.
Somehow they believe (for more than 25 years, and with them other leagues in the USA) that the open market and the different salaries will not do the job.

Last edited by Pini פיני at 11/6/2011 5:54:54 PM