BuzzerBeater Forums

That is one of the biggest challenges, to expose players periodically to the market.

Perhaps there could be a salary comparison. BB could check the N players with the same position, age, and closest salary. Then it could rank the skills of the players. If your player was in the top 5 percentile, he might get a 50% raise, in the top 10 percentile, a 30% increae, in the top 25% percentile, 20% more, or the top 50%, up 10%.

If you didn't like the player's demand you could TL him with an initial price that would set a new salary. You would have to set a price that would give a player at least a small salary increase (10%) in the first few years of a player's career (18-23?), maintain it until he is 30, and then permit a 10% decrease for older players.

That means I would have to be constantly transferring players in and out to minimize my salaries and still have good players. People become attached to their players and I don't think they should be penalized for holding on to them.

Furthermore, by fixing their salary based on the TL price alone, you would be rewarding good traders. I understand that some of this game is based on trading. But I don't want to give the traders any more of an advantage than they have already. What you propose turns the game into a trading game instead of a basketball game.

Finally, to get the player a low salary, you just have to transfer him when no one is online.

Last edited by HeadPaperPusher at 8/4/2008 5:42:04 PM

I would be grouping players based on their transfer-price based salary, but ranking them on some value, whether it is DMI or "BB skill-based salary". The presumption would be that the best players are being underpaid.

If you didn't like the player's demand, you could test the market. Owner's who had become attached to a player could either meet the player's demand, or they could place him on the transfer market at a price that would result in no one bidding on him and they keeping him.

My proposal would tend to increase the salary component, and decrease the transfer price component of the cost of owning a player. It would reduce the value in buying/re-selling by traders.

There would be a reward for those who find players for attractive prices, just as there is now. There could be a reward for those who develop their own players since their salary will lage their development.

A player has to be on the TL for 72 hours. Are there 72 hours when no one is on line? If your aim is to get a player with a salary of 1/2 the salary of what the market is currently paying, you would have to list him at 1/2 the price of those other players. Are you suggesting that if you saw Player A at $100,000 and a $3,500 per week salary, and his Twin brother A' at $200,000 and $7,000 per week salary, you're going to bid on A' because his deadline is more convenient?

That was actually a pretty clever solution that solves a lot of the problem with how salaries would be updated otherwise. Strange that I haven't seen anyone present that idea before.

I can see some small glitches, but not any real big ones at first sight, so I think it definitely is an idea to develop further.

(30308.1)

Wasnt perfect... but this was my original idea....

If you rank on BB salary or DMI, it goes back to my original suggestion earlier in this thread. That was to increase salary based on a function of BB salary.

I don't think people should be rewarded for longer than 5-6 weeks (half a season) for finding good prices. Similarly, once a trained player is ready for prime time, his salary should start to increase. On the other hand, if the player is not ready to play on the main squad, his salary should stay low. Otherwise training players will become unattractive.

I don't follow BB player sales much. However, in HT you used to be able to sell players for cheaper prices late at night. With no one online, bidding wars are less likely to happen.

Anyhow, at least I now have you talking about a salary component and transfer price component. ;-) I'm glad we agree that the key would be to adjust player salaries somehow - we just disagree on the method. I personally think some form of salary adjustment is the way to go.

I don't like the flat salary for every player. This would still favour the teams with larger arenas and make it harder for teams entering division I to compete.

the idea was flawed but i raised the point 3 months ago of too much money in the game.....

i also predicted the tightening in increased revenue and hinted that a more consistent STH / attendence was needed...

anyway - this thread has no doubt helped with the ongoing tweaks that are currently taking place and again the biggest lesson everyone can learn is not to become too attached to any rule / formula until the game really has found a rythym.

so plan ahead in smaller steps and be versatile to make big changes if necessary...

this way when the next big announcement comes you can adjust with minimal effort!

Sorry, I didn't read the whole thread - I also thought it was a more recent post. It is funny that people in that thread protest what essentially is happening now.

While the price may be lower at night, it is not substantially so. And in this case the owner would be trying to set a price higher than other teams would be willing to bid, but not so high that he gets stuck with a high salary.

Sometimes, owners will list players with a somewhat high price in hopes that someone will meet the initial bid. If the market is around $1.4M, they'll set a price of $1.5M. But that won't work here. If no one bids, they've just reset his salary to a high level. So they will want to set a price that no one will bid on.

If they lowball too much, someone will bid on him, even in the deadline is the middle of the night. And then, they've lost the player, and for a relatively low price.

I'm quite sure this new way of transferring and complex wage changes will never be implemented. The game should be easy to pick up by newbies, even the TV-game income has been adjusted (which I regret).
Don't expect to have a basic functionality such as the TL to be made rather complicated and time consuming.

How about removing or raising the skill caps, increase training speed again, and implement some kind of short term arena or ticket revenue tax.

Slowing training and capping players skills only made inflation worse.