BuzzerBeater Forums

one suggestion was already given in this thread - club pays the salary for at least 4 weeks, either weekly (no change to current situation) or one time fee if the player is sold/fired within first 4 weeks after purchase... this is a radical financial measure targetted at divine-tricks and muted players, should be very effective...

as for playoff/relegation/cup games I suggest setting the transfer deadline 2-4 weeks earlier than it is now (similar measure as the one taken for B3)... for cup games it will be most difficult to solve as the final games vary in time between the countries

I can imagine another suggestion it was mentioned by someone earlier in some thread. It would be based on adaptability. It would take some time to make 100% performace for new signings. Maybe just 50% preformance before first training in new team, 75% of common performance after second training in new team and 100% of performance after second training in new team. It's just example, finally the numbers could be different, also it could take more time. By 50% performance I mean players with IS 20 would be playing like his IS is 10.

I fully agree with that... it's just that it might not be taken into consideration by BBs, because it requires additional attributes in the database and changes in game engine... but that's not for us to analyse, the idea is good as far as it goes for effects it would give

As a employee of software company I don't think it would be so difficult, it's just about inputs for game engine not about changing the game engine.

Because in my eyes impact of lower game shape is not strong enough and even if I accept the idea of lowering game shape it have to be 2 level just as player is bought, 2 level down GS first training and 1 level second training, but not random drop but accurate drop after common GS calculation. And even with this rule I'm not sure it would stop these tricks.

600k center in average ... is still probably better than 100k proficient...

it might be a solution as those players are transferred very often so they would get -2 drop every week, soon nobody will want to buy them in awful gs... that idea might work, but the previous one with 50% skill usage seems a bit better to me

These types of players already tend to suffer from low GS because of always changing owners and everyone wants to get the most minutes out of their rentals. A better but more difficult to implement solution would be to introduce something like Team Cohesion or Team Chemistry which I know has been a concept that has been suggested many times. It also seems more realistic too because just because a player gets traded he doesn't become magically fatter or more out of shape, no the negative effet from trades in real life is seen in the impact it has on team chemistry.

In some sports, NT players are owned by the NT on "central contracts" who loan them out to clubs, but dictate when they play (and thus manage their fatigue).

Something like this could work for Buzzerbeater. At the end of the season, the NT coach could have the option of offering a limited number of players on the NT roster contracts with the NT association (with the owners receiving a standard compensation fee. Owners who turn down the offer would be committed to retaining their player for the following season). These players would be made available by the assocaition for B3 games only, and also play for the NT.

A B3 draft could be held to see who gets which players.

A number of variables would need defining (how game shape is calcluated, how many central contracts are allowed, what the compensation fee is, how the players would be allocated to clubs in B3, what happens to players who lose their central contract at the end of the season) but the essential idea might keep the highest salaried players available for NTs but take them out of league and tournament play where thye do more harm than good.

The downside I see to that is that at some point you have to "give up" your trainee to the U21 and/or the NT so that the NT can own them instead. If I did the work to train up a kick butt SF for the NT, I wouldn't be too happy if that player was unavailable for any game I wanted to put him in, as opposed to being "allowed" to play him in certain games.

Hence the provision that clubs can turn down the central contract offer (but then have to keep the player for a set period of time).

This would protect clubs from having their PGs, SGs and SFs taken out of their clubss while allowing to receive some compensation for training PFs and Centres past the point of economic efficiency for their club.

Last edited by Elmacca at 3/31/2011 4:56:02 PM