BuzzerBeater Forums

At least on our nt i wasnt advising primary skills trains all the time, i also adviced secundary skills to dont rise players salary and we did a good job, but now the game is penalising our national team when we did the things exactly bb's-said, training multiskilled players. While others nt's just have monoskilled players, and at the end this rise of salary will affect us more than them. If not take a look on mono-skilled players on others teams with just JS-JR-OD, there isnt any player like this on our nt and the ones i've read i always refused to call them because they have a lack of secundary skills.

I think you're confusing some effects here.

If you train a player, their skills go up and their salary goes up. This is true independently of changes in the salary curve. So, the players who are training had their skills go up and their salary go up. The multiskilled players who are not training had their salaries go up around 10%. The monoskilled players who are training also had their skills go up and their salaries go up. The monoskilled players who are not training had their skills stay the same and their salaries go up around 10%.

I agree with you that you are discovering that what is best for national teams is not what is best for club teams. All teams tend to want to train players who are slightly better than their opponents at everything - that's the best use of salary. This typically means that a top national team wants better players than a top club team wants.

In return, players who are playing on their national team generating merchanding revenue which helps to pay for their salary. When all teams are earning a ton of money anyway, this doesn't matter. But, when teams are spending most of what they take in, this extra merchandising money is quite valuable, which means that an owner with a national team-caliber player might be able to be talked into continuing to give him some training in return for getting him to play every week. Both sides have some leverage and both sides have to agree. Kind of like real-world club vs. country problems, huh?

I think what you are really reacting to is noticing that a division III team cannot afford to keep one of the top players in the game. This is by design. The truth is, a top division team *can* choose to pay $400k/week for a star player as long as they build their team accordingly. Is this an optimal team? Probably not, but it's a good way for somebody who just promoted to build a team strong enough to keep them in Division I because it's cheaper on the transfer market than buying 5 $80k players. This means that national teams are not going to be able to find Division V farm teams for their top players - they're going to actually have to make do with whatever players the top club teams are producing.

I'm sorry if this disappoints you, but it's been the inevitable result since national teams were introduced. We've been saying pretty consistently that the game needed to reach equilibrium and that until it did, there would continue to be adjustments. And that in the equilibrium state, we expect the top players to be affordable for top division teams only, but we also expect that top division teams will use their entire budget each season and therefore a newly promoted team will be able to buy enough players to compete. We're not *quite* there yet - the first generation of the most talented players has not quite yet hit their skill cap. But we're getting close to finally being in a stable state. The current top end of the salary curve is now very close to where it will be permanently. This means that next season, you'll probably see that players who train go up in salary and players who do not train go down a little in salary.

But if you're shocked and dismayed that players who train go up in salary, well, I'm afraid you're going to continue to be shocked and dismayed the rest of the time you play BuzzerBeater.