BuzzerBeater Forums

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.

Height being the great determinant of how fast players learn has always been lame and silly. Instead I think a more radical and much better solution would be to have had a learning skill but I guess it is way too late for that. I think there are still a few things to be done to improve the situation:

1: Change the balance of potentials making the middle potentials star and allstar a lot more common. I agree with a pervious poster that a lot of the lower potentials are all the same and are just degrees of useless.

2: Change the formula for the wages of big men they are way too high compared to guards and especially SFs.

3: Maybe tone down the top couple of potentials so there aren't $400,000 players running around that no-one but NTs want but NTs have to have.

Not that much really....but then we get to...
SHARMAN

PG 247
SG 211
SF 93
PF 198
C 205

bankroll management at his best :-D

if sharman didnt know the depth than i reopen some of the unbalancend small nations threads from the past for some sweet haterade :-DD

Not that much really....but then we get to...
SHARMAN

PG 247
SG 211
SF 93
PF 198
C 205

That's 954k salarys on starters alone (1,077mil salarys total). His last game brought in 488k, 582k if he wins his previous league game. Add TV money and some merc money to the arena and you can guess how big of a minus he is running. I have already said it before. In micronations, tanking is a viable option. You can't effectivly tank in big nations, you have to pay minus to get back up and if you fail to get back up you are stuck at a nonprofitable division.

So those 3 teams all focused, building, and players are created. Now Sharman buys them up with funds he has via his position in teh leagues and funds banked for the hayday of daytrading.

I've seen you vouching simpler training (just trainee assignement and no playing spot restrictions) and higher skilled trainees on suggestion forums. Wouldnt that even make the problem bigger. As there are more talent to choose from and prices are lower.
What is a good solution? We have some options. Raising the player salary floor is prolly the best to remove most of the tanking positives. Perhaps even introduce a flexible salary cap at 800k. Like it was previously in the NBA. 1 extra dollar on every buck spent over 800k (player salary total only).
I still think the biggest problem lies in the micronations. They really need to get merged into regional divisions.