BuzzerBeater Forums

not even football players receive weekly increase in salary...hahaha!!!

And their year surely doesn't have 16 weeks, either.

No, it does take money away. If we try to avoid the raising salaries of our staff we have to go out and bid for a new one, spending several weeks, if not months worth of staff salaries on staff. This is a ridiculous money sink because now we cant use the money to field a better team on the court, instead we're pressured to use it to buy people who won't even be in the gym.

I think you will be surprised how quickly the prices taper off...

Bottom line is you can use the staff system or TL for players in many ways...

If as Juice says the staff are regurgatated (no idea if spelling is right but always great to get that word into a sentence) then the market will be flooded pretty soon and then I imagine it wont cost much to replace... if 700 new staff per week being replaced and then 700 added to we will be up to 3500 in 5 weeks which is enough for 1/10 users... how many are that active? by 20 weeks there will be (all things being equal) 14,000 staff on the list with 105,000 staff employed.... its not as if these will be dumped onto the market within a few weeks of purchase so by this time you will likely have the ability to buy whoever...

As ive said before... you can train FT/Stamina til the market subsides... have you really got the optimal trainees for a top level (5+) coach? If not concentrate on this first.....

Edit - just checked and you have one 18yo and two 19yo only.... what are you training? If you are training optimally i find it hard to believe they are in their current GS.... seems you may need to get other parts of your franchise in order first before worrying about staffing matters..

Last edited by Superfly Guy at 10/15/2008 9:22:48 PM

so who gets a monthly increase in their salary?

ahhhh

sales people . . . from commision i guess :D

so who gets a monthly increase in their salary?

Another example of using the 'realism' argument only when it fits you. Remember it's still a game. We can go on and use this argument for 90% of the game, in both positive and negative ways, but why would we?

Another example of using the 'realism' argument only when it fits you. Remember it's still a game. We can go on and use this argument for 90% of the game, in both positive and negative ways, but why would we?

isn't "realism" the ultimate basis of a "simulation" game? but i'm not going into that anymore because there is no sense in going against the system...time to bite the bullet and move on...

ahhhh

sales people . . . from commision i guess

commission is not part of an employee's salary(basic pay)...

There are alot of healthy opinions and good comments in this one.. I would like to get my vote in on the next "big rfc and release" to be on the basketball/coaching side of the game. When all is said and done I think that is what draws in managers as well.. their interrest for basketball.

Peace,

-P

The new system puts new teams at an even bigger disadvantage than before, and it keeps 'old money' in the hands of those currently with it.

New teams will need to LEARN the system. Not that it's something complex, but it is different from the way most people are hired -- especialyl with a system of ever-increasing wages -- regardless of merit or anything other than time employed. Nice for a union job.

Most teams will be unable to bid on the higher end trainers. So the idea of doing something to make the game easier for the lower end managers is weakened with this addition because supply outweights damand greatly, thus only those with money will be able to buy the top open staff.

While this may seem like a way to initially get huge portions of money off the market, in reality it is not becasue there are still several people who bit wuite high who did not win and because of a lack of supply they will still have their money. Because of this they will be resigned to buy a lower tier staff member thus driving up that price, and with the remaining money will buying the newly trained players who trained at a quicker rate fromt he top level staff (still emplyed by the teams with the 'old money').

Based on the above, the average team will now be falling behind not just in revenue but in their ability to train quickly enough to keep up with the old, monied teams who have the best trainers. This will result in money flowing BACK to the old teams in larger sums and more frequently (quicker traininr and / or more trainees coming out of those clubs with top-end trainers).

I surely cannot bid on the top end trainers, so I will need to make due with the second tier (or worse) so I'll never be able to catch up with those with better trainers in either talent for my team (they train quicker than my guys) or talent to sell and thus improve my non-trained positions (they train quicker and / or more thus they get revenue more frequently, and in larger chunks).

I don't see how making it harder for a new team to compete (or even a team of a few seasons) will promote longevity, but perhaps I'm mistaken.

Most teams will be unable to bid on the higher end trainers. So the idea of doing something to make the game easier for the lower end managers is weakened with this addition because supply outweights damand greatly, thus only those with money will be able to buy the top open staff.

the top staff ain't usefull for that prices the different ain't huge, just in the price so now you had tomluck wath staff helps me most and how much i could spend on it.

I would say that actually people makes the ebst buissnes who hire level four trainer, when they need a new one ...

The benefit of old teams would be history after dismissing their first free level 5 Staff members.

If you invest that money into skill, the managers with top treainers won't catch up your trainees.