BuzzerBeater Forums

Well, honestly in most professional sports, Teams having several BIG TIME national players will most of the time make quite a solid loss. There´s only a handful examples (FC Bayern in Football p.e.) who manage to actually make profit although having a team stacked with team players, usually (FC Barcelona, Real Madrid, Chelsea...) teams make severe losses.

It´s not that different in other sports.

Well, honestly in most professional sports, Teams having several BIG TIME national players will most of the time make quite a solid loss. There´s only a handful examples (FC Bayern in Football p.e.) who manage to actually make profit although having a team stacked with team players, usually (FC Barcelona, Real Madrid, Chelsea...) teams make severe losses.

It´s not that different in other sports.

Its a difference if you cant finance a team of SEVERAL NT players (real world), or if one player is enough to bust your bank (BB).

It is even more stupid that any division II team could afford Lebron but no team besides the Venemous Scorpions could afford Dwight Howard.

I think he does not understand, that here, superstars will not take a paycut and go to teams where they can win championships. Here Rashard Lewis (badly trained) demands a 22mil (305k) season salary. A lot of pretty good players demand 13mil per season in NBA. That's about 1/4 of salary cap. If we look at BB top team earnings, the salary cap is around 800+. So a good player in BB is around 200k salary range. You can easily afford D.Howard in this game. D.Howard is demanding 31% of salary cap in the NBA. That's about 248k in BB salary. If you really want to have K.Bryant you have to pay 348k salary. I think it's affordable. You can afford any player in BB right now as a top team. It seems BB does not have anti-steroid rules. So you can actually afford D.Howard on steroids aswell. Is it smart funds management. I think not, but until people stop training those steroid monsters or stop paying their salary, they all will eventually retire and we have a normal game.

Last edited by Kukoc at 12/25/2011 3:32:27 PM

That is wrong. You are saying Dwight Howard in BB would be 248K but the best big man in BB is Bertas Šeporaitis, salary of 472k and having him on your team would wreck your team and make it uncompetetive. How could you long term afford him and four other good 100k starters and then a decent bench?

but the best big man in BB is Bertas Šeporaitis, salary of 472k

afford D.Howard on steroids aswell.

472k would be paying someone in the NBA 34mil for a season. Teams can afford that, but managers would prolly just choose not to pay that. In BB it's all about building the best team with your funds. Sure you can take that 472k player, but is he that much better to give up 4x100k salary from other spots on the floor? That's the challenge of this game. Training your brains out on one player, serves no meaning, unless you want to be known as a NT monster trainer. Like I said before, people were training like idiots, that's why they started to adjust salarys compared based on overall player skill levels and introduced cross-training to limit those 2-3 skill trainers.

Pleas e do elaborate how you would like the salary formula to be like.

Pretty easy, cap salaries at 250k and let the managers train the players as long as they want.

Or, going back to the topic of the thread - adjust the whole talent concept, and make salary (and maybe skills?) alot more dependent on seasons performance. if someone gets better and is a key player for the team (improved role), he might ask for more, if he drops off in performance, loses skills (maybe connected to the max skill level?) or playes a dminiuished role, he might ask for less.

In part it´s already there, but how about something like that ... (based on the original proposal some 60 posts above):

Potential - remove potential as it is now. Let all players achieve at least level 5 of the current system, make the average cap something like "all star", let the players develop at different speed, and - linked to the new "talent" level - let the detoriation of skills start between 29 and 33.

Income - mix between "skillset", "development", "performance", "role on the team" and maybe "team success". you might add some "penalties" for voluntarily underachieving teams in the last aspect (like: no one likes losing by huge margins, and players keep asking for compensation in exchange for their suffering).

Last edited by LA-seelenjaeger at 12/25/2011 7:02:04 PM

Or just hard cap skills, that there would be no more improvement after hitting 250k. If you want to cap something, that's a lot more logical solution.

I think your proposed system would be a huge mess. How can you measure season performance? How can you add that to salary? This game is based on skills, skills create performances and salary. Training and keeping good GS makes your players play over their salary range. It's really simple. Why just randomize something up and make a system, that makes no sense?
2 exactly the same players. One is outperforming everyone in the IV-th league. The other one is a backup in II league. Which one would be better in the next season. Based on performance IV-th league player? How would you calculate it?
You can't remove potential. It works as a cap differentiating great players and role players. Players already develope at different speeds, the modifier is height.