BuzzerBeater Forums

Agree that the concept is good... and I am with others that this proposed addition needs increased incentives...

-We need more resources...

-Liked the idea of sir Minkoff too... part of the Training Extension direct/indirectly be our incentive.

Additional Suggestions:

-All-Star Appearance be incentivized the week after the ASW.

-Agree with Sir Mediocrity... Add/Increase the Performance-based incentives... probably have a weekly Incentive/Bonus for those Weekly Top Performers separated from the Top Players...

-Add Sponsorship System... In an F1 Managerial game I played (gpro.net)... there is this thing that the speed of the Negotiation process is based on the Performance of a manager... let it be a Season-long race for Players in each per League for a chance to get a Sponsor or better if those who will end at every Category of Top Performers will receive 1 sponsor after Season ends...

-that the Sponsorship incentive will be given Weekly to a player.
-the amount of the incentive is based on the Division he unlocked it.
-sponsor's name be attached to the player's Profile if he receives 1 or more...

-Localized Automated U19 League/CPU-controlled Teams U19 Localized BBM-like Tourney... with Performance-based Incentives...To have a play-by-play or be it a Box-Score only is up to the Devs...
-Use the first half of the Season to Eliminate low-performing players/ use games to eliminate weak performers/CPU owned players.
-Top Performers will be distributed equally to new teams after ASW... and battle it all out.... Player's Incentive will continue until he gets eliminated from this.
-Will encourage Training not only for U21 but also for everyone's Core. And observe Players' Aggression.


Last edited by Bro_Khen at 6/17/2022 1:24:33 AM

This game doesn't need more money. You can change the way and the reasons it's given to managers but you should NOT change the global amount.

It's like BIG said : more money, more problems !

We need:
1) numbers numbers and numbers about % of staff, with % of training, health etc (please see Hattrick)
2) manage garbage time: user can set players who play in garbage time
3) revision of salary formula
4) money from friendly match
5)revision about draft but I have not idea how. I read more more suggestions about it

Giving extra merch for one player only, discourages managers from stacking 3-5 of them in one team and encourage teams to buy their own star, instead of being a mid-low table team having no reason to have a star.
We see this problem in many D1s and D2s and so on.

With respect, giving more money to a team that is already, currently, right now, stacking 3-5 mega-salaries will do what now?

Point 1:
If this is the current "problem statement", then I don't think it's clear there is a systemic problem to be solved.

Thanks for Big Njord's direction of thinking what is the problem we want to solve.

Here are some problem statement candidates.

1. The market value of high salary player is low.
I don't think the merchandise bonus will help significantly, since the amount of bonus is little and it's not enough. I associate this problem with unemployment in midlife with high salary base. It seems that it is not easy to solve it. Maybe changing the game engine is the best way to make them valuable.

2. The league competitiveness is not enough and burning money to keep 5 to 7 super star players is overpowered.
Similar to candidate 1, the effect of bonus won't be significant. I suggest raise the over-extension tax and decrease training exemption, keep the monster away.

3. The "unbalanced" team (such as 1 high salary and 4 to 7 low salary players) is too weak.
I believe if the total salary are the same, then the "balanced" team is better than "unbalanced" team. If this problem, the "unbalanced" team is too weak, is true, then the merchandise bonus is a great idea, in my opinion.

Last edited by little Guest at 6/18/2022 9:35:53 PM

What if the top salary player doesn't play league game and only play cup games and scrimmages? If the team still get the bonus, then maybe it is not fair. There is no such thing as a free lunch.

So that's why I'm not against giving more revenue. But I would say that revenue should go to all teams (scaled by division - hence the TV contract mechanism) to let them do as they see fit.

I like the idea of making the TV contracts higher. Additionally, I do think it would do well to reward teams based on the performance of their top player (though not simply by salary). There are already merchandise rewards for having players on the leaderboards and based on their performance. I think it would be a good idea to increase these rewards for the best player on each team.

Exhaustion should bring about an end to the short rosters (at least rosters of 5 or 6). In my experience with it, you have to run at least 7 players and even running 7 is very risky. If anything goes wrong with substitution patterns, an injury, or a foul out you are in danger of losing a huge amount of performance. I currently run 7 as my roster was primarily put together before the changes. In the future I will build a team of 8 main players.

As for teams affording 3-5 very high salary players (which was mentioned by other players), I am one of them. The total salary for my roster is a few hundred thousand per week above anyone in the NBBA other than Apex. It is completely unsustainable for my team and nor do I think it should be sustainable. However, it will always be a thing and what is required to win at the top levels (especially b3) so long as there is no harsher penalty for having such a high salaried team. I would gladly accept a penalty that makes it near impossible to go over certain amounts in salary and would reduce to 1-2 stars on my team surrounded by other players. But since it is currently viable to do so, I am going to do it in order to have the best chance at success in BBM, NBBA, and the cup (and also as I enjoy helping the NT).

As for teams affording 3-5 very high salary players (which was mentioned by other players), I am one of them.

I wasn't criticizing the way you or anyone else run their team, I was just criticizing the idea that giving you more money will discourage how you run your team. I think the logic in the first few paragraphs of the OP is sound, a 15% rebate for the highest salary on the team is fair for everyone, leaves room for strategy and advantage or mistakes, and increases the value of training while raising the ceiling on salary-efficient players and multi-skilled players, as you noted. I could see quite a few people learning to enjoy helping an NT somewhere in order to maximize the salary relief.

Makes sense. I actually think a better system would stop teams from running as high of a payroll as I do, but I like your points.

Some sort of cap (or penalties/taxes above a certain treshold) makes perfect sense too.
Though there's several interesting points/ways to make changes that have been mentioned already, it's a matter of trying to find the better way to do it.