BuzzerBeater Forums

One key aspect of contract negotiations is monoskilled would be paid less and versatile would be paid more...balancing out a bit the realism . still some player would be overhyped/overpaid but this would be the failure of the manager who negotiated the contract, not a autoset system to pidgeon hole every manager in the game to pay players weekly on the same bogus criteria.

Hit the nail on the head!

One key aspect of contract negotiations is monoskilled would be paid less and versatile would be paid more

But then there is no downside if you train a monoskill monster. Currently it's a lot harder to train multiskill, trading off wins to play out of position etc.
I think the proposed contract system is messy, has too many variables/negotiables. Is not an upgrade to the current system.
Edit: correction, thanks Wolph

Last edited by Kukoc at 6/16/2012 2:54:46 AM

I think the proposed contract system is messy, has too many variables/negotiables. Is not an upgrade to the current system.

It would seem exactly the same if we were using a contract system and considering the system we have now.

In a contract system, I agree, you have to resign the player at end of training at whatever market is, so maybe not as much reward for proper training versus lazy training. There should be an advantage to being the current holder of contract, such that like I said you get an extra 24 hours after everyone else to match the best offer. I was thinking beat it, but maybe an option to just match. So whatever anyone else bid you have the option to just match it (this is how works in some real leagues too, depending on contract type) hence the idea to have restricted free agents....

There are a few minor problems with this, but it's an awesome idea!

Thanks for the correction, I did mean it's hard to train multiskilled players.

In this case people would not bid salaries up to high etc. on good players since they know they can't win auction if current owner plans to keep~ this means you get cheaper for any player you train probably. That means bidding starts at a minimum that player is willing to accept to play for anyone.

This is the biggest flaw of proposed system. You can not bring salary negotiations into an online game. You can not have different salarys on players, depending on the strenght of the club hireing, his wife liking the schools there, his nationality etc. This would create a hectic system. I can not understand how you get more realism, by creating contracts, that end next season at the same time they were signed. Contracts can be signed at any moment, but they always end at the end of the season (unless it's a 10 day or temp contract within the season). This obviously would create crappy, must be online now offseasons, additionally it would create a problem with the servers and processing the offseason.
What would the transfer list look like? I see all players contract end times? See only players that have contract ending in 3 days (this is utter bullshit as I know usually contracts end at the end of the season, unless you are canned).
Contracts have clauses in them, as you said, that a higher division club can buy him out. So I can buy out my next cup opponents players?
Cash bonuses being a part of the player signing. So in order to avoid getting scrubs you must maintain yourself a decent weekly income, otherwise there is no way you can keep your players for the next season (contract period). There would be a lot of one season butterfly teams. Save all the money, crank up your "salary cap", try to win, can't sign good players because of no weekly income. Have a middle year and then try again.
I don't see any upside to training in this system. You say you should train players for your own team. It's currently also the best tactic to train your players. Weather to train them from scratch or buy good level player and try to add training to make him great. There is no way a team can train all the players he needs. You get better result in small countrys, as you can easily train 3 players, 1 pos. Lower division create those middle class players, when sold to higher division clubs, will get trained from that point on.
The current system is not flawless, but it's a lot more suitable to an online game, than contract negotiation suggestion.

Last edited by Kukoc at 6/16/2012 1:36:16 PM

Some excellent points.

I am going to take your #1 and #4 together first.

I am suggesting that- LIKE PRESENTLY the SYSTEM determine a MINIMUM SALARY BASED ON SKILLS> This would not be random, but predetermined on same criteria for all players. IF people want to pay the player more salary, guarantee a longer contract (where salary increases over time starting at that base) signing bonus etc.

You mentioned that there would be min and max before. So using your #4

f yo udon't like signing bonus idea, it coudl be removed. Its an OPTION. The alternative to offering a signing bonus is higher pay or longer contract.

So basically whoever offers the max contract first get's the player. You know we can not implement more than one season contracts with current training system. Just because I could lock up my trainee for 5 seasons. If he starts at 5000 (have you seen any contract that doubles a player salary annually?), so giving him 10% raise a annualy for example (which is very generous compared to RL), we get a salary of 7320,5 when he is 23yo. He can be 100k+ player after 3 seasons already. Would create a lot of misunderstanding. Salary currently offers you a somewhat idea of the opponents strength.

About the number 2-s :

#2 NO this doesn't similuate completely real world contract.

I don't understand how salary range is better than fixed salary formulae? Currently the transfer list already regulates the different salarys per player/skill level. You might get the exact same skilled player for more or less, depending on the competition currently online/interested/funds available etc. Currently players and clubs are emotionless. They renew player salarys at the start of every season. Everyone get's offered a fair contract according to salary formulae. How is your system better?
In addition ending the contracts in the middle of the seasons with different contract lenghts will create a server heavy system. You will have to recalculate and update the player salarys during the season. How can that help the server load?

About buyouts. Guaranteed contracts are a pankrupcy favored system. If I relegate (yes I know it never happens in Japan unless you want to) I can't get rid of my high salary roster. How is that any good?

What I actually ment by buyouts is clauses that let you join a higher level club when the agreed sum is paid. A lot of contracts have these clauses. That's how I can empty my next cup opponents roster or remove the dangerous players.

If this is too complicated a concept for you, take an accounting course.

It has become clear, that you want a different game all together. Your suggestions are usually poinltess, seldom thought through and you seem to have never developed anything yourself + you like to rant, but do not put the work in to gather the facts (supporter coverage % comes to mind first). Perhaps you should stick to training basketball to girls.

There are ~50k managers in BB, most do not play in the top division, most do not know how to train effectivly.

So again, what is the upside of your proposed system?

Most of what you guys are differing on is a communication thing. Please don't allow your communication difficulties (both of you) lead you to frustration and name calling.