BuzzerBeater Forums

You are also not really taking my point to the full extent. I agree, every team can physically purchase the player. But how many teams can run the salary cap that our finalists are running? Every single one? You could afford right now to pay 1m to hire a guy, and 500k-1m salary to pay the guy, and that wouldnt affect you in any way in your league play? Youd still win the title?

It depends on the league....and yeah,this is just the point.To win the B3 you have to be forced to partially disrupt your team?
Does not have sense that the best team in the world lose their national championship few weeks later 'cause they have to sell good players to pay the salary monster

Last edited by Steve Karenn at 12/3/2010 3:59:20 PM

Remember that if you win the B3 you'll be in all the future BBB and this brings money. They're not fighting only for the glory

Your second point is ok, I guess, though Im not sure that the 'best' players being too expensive can really qualify as an anomaly, though I guess that would be good ole semantics again.

they are too expensive on salary (obviously, they're the best ones), but too cheap on the market (and that's not good)

I know what you are saying, but umm, in a market like we have in buzzerbeater, where the players set the price by what they bid on, its not really....valid to say that a player is 'too cheap on the market', since the market is open and we set the price. So, I dont know, maybe im the only one, but I just dont see how anyone can go for too cheap on a regular basis. He is going for what hes worth in our current dynamics.

which is a... not good dynamic? and before you reply "how can you say it's not good", if i remember well in the past the BB said they wanted to avoid this type of situation

I also don't see what the problem is with the current system? It's a trade off: burn through some cash as the finals approach to increase your chances of winning the B3, or don't. Managers weigh the pro's (winning) and the con's (bid price, salary cost), and decide. Different teams will be more or less able to absorb the con's, but ultimately it's just people weighing the costs vs. benefits and then deciding if it's worth it for them.

It's a trade off, and the game is full of trade offs:

-train a guy as high as you can vs. keep him salary efficient
-play to win every night vs. train out of position to get more balanced secondaries
-spend your money on good veterans to maybe promote sooner, but w/the risk that your team will age out and need to be rebuilt in a couple seasons
-invest money in the draft, or don't
-expand your arena now, or wait

...and so on. If you remove the ability to rent ringer's for a few weeks, there's no longer that tension between what's best for your club and what gives you the best chances of winning the B3. Not being able to 'have it all' is part of what makes this game so much fun IMO.

Well, the really small countries don't have so many round of their tournaments i.e. they can't TIE for B3 and arepenalized that way. I guess neutral arenas and thus PO Normal/ PO CT kick in for the same rounds of tournaments for each country meaning it is not in the same week for everyone. If that is the case (I didn't bother to check) that easily disables any advantage depending on size of a country.

Whilst I agree from a purists perspective it would nice to see teams go mano y mano with their more settled rosters, it didn't take a rocket scientist to forecast the trend we've seen this season and last given the fall in transfer prices. Couple this with the knowledge that we've known that the most expensive player in the world would always eventually bounce around from team to team and you would have to be kidding yourself if you think you could win this competition without having to take more risks than previous winners.

A 3rd element is the fun factor which a lot of big teams have lost having dominated their domestic rivals so they will go even further to try lift the last trophy missing in their cabinet.

Rule changes will surely occur but for now its a arms race using whatever resources you have at your disposal. If you cant beat em, then join em.

What type of situation are you referring to?

best players not being affordable for the best teams for more than 2-3 weeks

Might be enough if team couldnt go over weekly incomes otherwise most expensive player couldnt play in a game or something. Doesnt sound very exciting to me that managers are using loopholes in most famous international event. It is like there would be nails on the F1 road just because developers would think that teams have too much money.