BuzzerBeater Forums

Looks like im the only one who thinks these players cause more a problem to the game then they contribute to it.

how did you come to this conclusion?
I've seen at least a couple of managers writing about this on the forum, me being one of them...

it might sound harsh, but making the rules to protect people that are unable to understand what they are doing is not the right way... let them drop out and start again, if you're talking about brand new players, they don't lose much, if a guy like this won't try again he'd drop out either way sooner than later...

In that case you dont need transfer percentage cut from earlier sell. While this thing offers me a freedom in correcting my bad purchase. Remember that there are lot of skills and lot of concepts which player can be contribution for the team, so is great that I can sell immediately someone who dont fit into schedule.

if you buy a player with low salary then those 4 weeks will have almost no impact, this is the case for begginers... players with salaries around 40k are bought mostly by experienced managers so I expect them to be responsible for their actions... so the suggestion in fact hits only mutant players, which is exactly the idea

no changes are needed in the transfer fee rules, those solutions might work together

As you know, centers are different, because they get high salary even if they are weak.

I think that percentage cut from another transfer will be in that case pointless even if they can make it together.

While this suggestion isnt anything which would make my life way harder, I just dont like to see that I have to count forward in such long way.

While this suggestion isnt anything which would make my life way harder, I just dont like to see that I have to count forward in such long way.

I just cannot agree with "such a long way". Buying a player for 1-2 games is not a strategy. Buying them for at least couple of weeks seems normal in case of emergency (i.e.injuries). Buying them for a reason, with a plan for the future (probably at least a season) is something basic in manager-style games. Can't see why you call giving a few weeks of a must-pay salary something that would require long-term planning. Id' say that it would limit short-term tricks and have no impact on normal game strategy.


Last edited by korsarz at 4/2/2011 9:47:51 AM

Okay, but think about it - I have to know game mechanisms way deeper than now, because if I want to try 80k center with very high shotblocking, very low FT and passing, and figure out that it wasnt very clever, what I have to do next, wait for another 3 weeks?

what do you mean by "trying"? buy for one game to see how he plays and sell?
anybody does that?

Im talking about the "room" for the wrong decision. You may know how things here works, I do not. My strategy is based just on probability and luck.

Im talking about the "room" for the wrong decision. You may know how things here works, I do not. My strategy is based just on probability and luck.

are you sure that any game should give a helping hand to the ones that randomly click in it ?
if you play without thinking then suffer the consequences, simple as that

Because the people buying these players to win certain games like cups or PO finals aren't worried about the money. As long as they don't go so far into debt that they'll bot out, it makes no difference.

I will not disagree with you there. However, lets face the facts. It will be made more difficult to do it losing so much more money than NONE at all and make it less appealing.

For the need to have such player for some period in the team as the obligation, well, what if I buy too high payed player and will not count my finances 4 weeks in advance, does it mean that I have to sell someone else to not go into red numbers?

This sucks too.

You are right. That would suck to go in red. It also means that you probably shouldn't have that player if you can't afford him realistically. What you are pretty much saying is what we are trying to combat. People getting players they can't afford just to win a game and selling them not to pay salary.

I mean leaving strategy, it means boost the team for important match, win the missing trophy and leave the game. In this case you don't care about bankruptcy after the match.

In that scenario they are also LEAVING. So once again it will put a strain if they don't leave as little as it may be it is still a strain. If they are leaving that will mean that "scumbag" player which is what I would call them is gone and so will one of those players.

MP Inclusive - I have to call your bullshit. When I first played this game many seasons ago I knew what you were just talking about would not work just by common sense and later discovery of forums. You are in D 3 if you dont know how things work by now I am baffled.

Also guys, I just want to point out that even though I am in D 5 I was about to promote to D 3 about 3 seasons ago and stopped playing. So don't think I am some noob haha I joined back up a month ago and have gone 8-1 and went from 7th to second in my weak division and set to compete with this same squad in D 4.

My thoughts are maybe we should pro-rata salaries of new purchases for the first two weeks for each competitive game played that week..

This idea comes from the chain of thought that I sign a player and don't pay his salaries even though he has played for my team... how is that right?

So assuming a player is purchased on a Monday, and is sold by Thursday, my next economic update will pay the salary for that player (either 1/2 or 1/3 depending on whether I'm in the cup or not). The team who purchased the player to play for the Cup on Thursday and in League on Saturday will pay 2/3 of the salary or if they are out of the cup and the only competitive game is a Saturday League game, they pay 1/2. This ensures all players get paid their salary by team and games played.. not whoever is unlucky enough to be holding him during the economic updates.

So let's say a 500k C is on the market, on average sells for $1m.

If a team purchases said player, currently the only loss is in the resale, provided they sell before the financial update. So about 21%.

A team will lose 200k using the current system. If we pro-rata the salary of new purchases, the loss for the team using this tactic will be 450k (assuming the C resells at $1m, almost a week's salary).

Hopefully this will really put pressure on reducing big men salary too..

Just a thought, not sure if it' feasible.