BuzzerBeater Forums

Yes, that's what I think, you should spend less on wages but should have to spend more to buy the players, and not the opposite.
Some people argue that high salaries are not a big deal because 95% of the managers are on lower divisions and so this problem don't affect most people but I think that high salaries are a big deal because they affect directly the NTs and the B3. If NTs and the B3 competition are not important so the BBs should get rid of them and so we won't have any complaints anymore.

Another of my suggestions:
4) involve adaptability to game, it would mean player wouldn't play on 100% of his abbilities just after the transfer, he would reach 100% after some time in new team, maybe one season, or some amount of games played. It could work f.e. like this:
- first game or week after the transfer playing like a lucky fun
- second game or week playing on 50% of abbilities
- third game or week playing on 75%
- etc.
There could be double speed of rising adaptibility for domestic players.

The numbers are kind of cruel, but the idea seems acceptable to me. More like a first week 70 percent, second 80 and so on.

I think that domestic players could run 90-100 percent right away, because the key issue during adaptability is the langage. Perhaps there might be a list of languages player already know, so he will adapt faster next time.

This probably kind of ruin the effort of "safer" B3, but looks to me like a cool thing to have it here.

I think the best option would be paying the first salary at signing. Or create a system which pays all the salarys of players staff that were with the team during last week (this way you would not have to pay the salary at signing). Perhaps even remember the signing fee at the next economic update (players signed last week have no salary at next economic update). Dunno which one of those is the easiest to implement.

Im not quite sure if salary payment will help, is possible that it will just send the price of player even more below.

Place the salary cap at $2.5million - the anticipated roster value you will need next season to win :D

1. I think being able to use funds from early bids mainly benefits those with friends in the game (in this case, countries) that they can ask to bid on one of their players so they can go bid on another player/staff. But I get Mod-CrazyEye's point too.

2. If you have to play the players salary at the outset or during the week, won't it just reduce the transfer bids by approximately their salary? Instead of paying 1.2 mil for Silvas, BK Tikums would probably have been able to get him for ~0.7 mil instead.

3. If this was the only thing done, this would only address it for BBB, and would just reduce the options available to those who want to make a run at the championship if they find themself in a rare situation to win.

4. I really like this idea, it reduces the 1 game rental players in all facets without limiting manager's options. And the justification to do that based on happens irl is that players need time to adjust to their new teams and settings. Makes things slightly more complicated, but I think in this case, it'd be worth it.

just my 2 cents.

Coupled with the current economy, this would make players like Silves simply useless, as he would bankrupt every team that owned him, or force that team to gut its roster just to cope with the first salary payment. The players wouldn't be worth $1 on the TL, except to new owners who don't know better - these new owners would be the only bidders, and would immediately go bankrupt.

This isn't a situation where a "quick fix" to salary payments will fix everything, as it makes BB's best players completely useless.

Obviously, the finances of the game's top-tier teams and players are in need of reconciliation. Quite simply, this part of the player market is in an unhealthy state.

Last edited by RiseandFire at 12/9/2010 3:28:34 AM