BuzzerBeater Forums

As a returning player, one thing I think might make it better for new players is to have a staggered salary floor to begin with and to increase the period to 36 weeks. This would encourage players to slowly build up their team and buy players. Currently the best strategy is to not buy anyone for the first 24 weeks and invest in the arena or infrastructure. New players will naturally want to buy players and improve their team and results.

Possible structure would be:

00 - 11 weeks 00%
12 - 17 weeks 20%
18 - 23 weeks 40%
24 - 29 weeks 60%
30 - 35 weeks 80%
36 weeks onwards 100%

I agree slightly.

Something i have noticed alot recently is really really good players becoming inactive due to high salaries being too high and people not wanting to rinse their whole teams salary on a good player .

Example 1: (53129812) he is 26 yrs old, salary $213,583, not a NT guy, tsp 108 (will probably expire and be a non player soon) sale price is the set $500,000 because his manager is defunct. this means for a team week 1 you are putting up minimum $713,583 for this guy.

Example 2: (52467823) 28 yrs old, salary 93,748, tsp 97 starting bid is $500,000 but his "suggested" price is between $90,000 and 150,000 meaning he will also be gone from the system (currently has 0 bids and 7 views (im probs 3) with 1 day remaining)

Example 3: (49860881) 35 yrs old, salary $101,195 tsp 126, $500,000


Example 4: (49861052) 35 yrs old, salary $184,040 tsp 150 starting bid $500,000had 32/8/10 in his last game in SGGL
The first two players are a real shame to lose — they’re young, but any team that wants them probably can’t afford them. The last two are older, yet still so skilled that they’re basically out of reach for newer or lower‑division teams.

So the question is: should there be a way for developing or lower‑tier teams to buy players like this without it becoming financially crippling?

Potential benefits of improving the system
1. Lower user turnover
When I first left BB, it was because I felt like I’d hit a glass ceiling. I couldn’t afford good players without risking bankruptcy, my young prospects weren’t developing fast enough, and I was stuck between Div II teams with years of experience and Div III leagues full of bots where I’d win by 70 every game.
That experience wasn’t fun — and I know I’m not the only one who’s been in that exact spot.

2. Good players stay in circulation
Players are lasting longer now — the “LeBron effect” — but instead of that being a positive, it’s creating a pile‑up of expensive players that nobody wants to buy from dead teams.
Take that last player as an example: any newly promoted Div III team getting smashed in Div II would love to rent him for a season just to be competitive. But they can’t. Even with a solid arena, they don’t have $684,040 for the first week alone, and even if they did, can their finances survive a single $184k‑salary player?

How to implement improvements
This is where it gets tricky.
You still want competitive balance, and you still want teams investing in the right areas. But the current system creates a huge risk around NT‑level players.

These guys get bought and sold constantly. A friend outside BB once told me he “doesn’t want to be left holding the bag” on one of them — and he’s right.
You buy an NT player for even $1,000, but then you’re paying a $200k+ salary, which is over $2.2 million across a season before finals. If you lose in finals or realise you can’t sustain that cost, you try to sell him… and nobody buys. Not even for $1,000.
He just sits on the transfer list for weeks, bleeding your finances dry.
For a season i experimented with a borderline NT player, big salary tried to get him his extra skill points our NT manager wanted. We finished 4th because the team around him (Div II) wasnt good enough. So if NT players/near NT level guys are going to be so expensive that even a div II team cannot handle them. you limit their market to only Div I teams. here is our glass ceiling.

Hello,

Everyone has a choice. .I think it wrong to blame the game for your own choice.

It's not like to injuries or etc. buying a player for 259k a week is a choice.

thats an illusion of choice, i cant buy a mansion because i dont have enough money. Thats not a choice

Im in Div II at the moment, maybe 1 team in our div could afford a $259k a week guy.

If any of those teams made the choice to purchase this player, they would be bankrupt.

Im talking about owner retention through maybe a tweaking of the salary system.

Ive built my arena, I am setting up my infrastructure. but even then it would be a poor financial decision for most owners to buy a $259k guy. My over arching issue is, he isnt $259k and 32 and about to start declining. This player should be a prime player pushing a NT team, and that will be lost.

Even broader, smaller nations that struggle to have owner numbers might have a handful of guys even reach this salary level. Those countries losing talent of that level kinda makes the NT competition even harder.

We need a cap on individual salaries ngl.

I think 200-250k would be a good number, that way it would make sense to create and retain some real monsters.

I’d love to see some kind of cap introduced or at the very least, a salary‑reduction mechanism for players stuck on defunct teams.

Take a near‑NT‑level guy on a $200,000 salary. His team disappears, and suddenly his starting bid is $500,000. Fine. But if he sits untouched for three days, why not trigger a drop?
Reduce his salary by, say, 10%, and lower the starting bid accordingly.

Now he’s at $180,000 with a $450,000 opening bid, still valuable, still expensive, but slightly less radioactive.

Maybe it has a 3 drop limit then the player gets "retired".
So after 3 drops the lowest the salary for the $200,000 player would go to is $145,800
200,000 * 0.90 = 180,000
180,000*0.90 = 162,000
162,000 * 0.90 = 145,800

the opening bid would then fall to say $364,500
500,000*0.90 = 450,000
450,000 * 0.90 = 405,000
405,000 * 0.90 = 364,500

If someone cant afford a player at a 72.9% valuation then either their isn't enough teams in the game to justify the contract or there are players at similar skill levels that are the same price.

Yes, salary is tied to TSP and position, but in the real world a 28‑year‑old on a $5 million contract doesn’t just vanish into unemployment; he takes $3 million and keeps playing. Market reality adjusts the price.

This could be implemented for all players with a starting salary over $100,000.

I also understand that this puts the game at risk of D1 level team trying to clean up on 28% discounted players, but then they would also need to then sell their own players to accommodate or keep a roster spot or 2 open for their team to buy these discounted players. It should cause a downward pressure to good players then falling to lower level teams.

Right now, when a team goes defunct or a player gets fired, the purchase cost is basically money thrown into a black hole. It doesn’t go to another team; it just evaporates into the game engine. A reduction system would at least let these players re‑enter the ecosystem instead of sitting on the transfer list like abandoned luxury goods no one can afford.

All 4 players I listed are retired, 3 of those 4 players i would have loved to have on my team. Im fine losing a player due to being outbidded. But them just disapearing because forking out $600,000+ on a 35 yr old for a div II team is nearly impossible to afford. Thats 2 weeks of our divs salary floor gone.

How do you handle skillups in this scenario? I doubt the salary formula is that flexible.

I agree the theory isnt without flaws. It would need input/working from people who are more in the know.

But with that said if good skilled, young players with skill pops remaining are being "retired" early then they cant be that valuable, maybe the salary formula needs a slight tinkering?

this part of the game is the economic part, and it will never be perfect, but tweaks like this could make it better.

I can also understand the reluctance of the developers and coders to want to change something like this as it would be difficult to get the balance right.

Could lower div teams get a slight salary cap benefit to promote taking a risk on older higher salary players that could make the games more competitive?

like if you are Div III, you can sign one player 32+ yr old with a tsp over 105 then you can elect to have that players salary only go against the cap x% like Bird Rights in the NBA and then in Div II the % goes down.

So maybe you sign a 34 yr old, salary is $100,000 TSP is 110 (just example im throwing numbers) then you can elect that players salary is only 70,000 for that season you sign them. (30% discount for div III) if your team is in Div II then you get a 25% discount? If you have made it to the top league no discount as you are in the top league.

It could make the lower divs slightly more competitive, doesn't necessarily take away from younger player development as you know you only get that discount for the year you have the player. So you still need to develop to be competitive next season.

I know Bird rights are for retaining a player that you already have... but its the example i have.

Even then could this be a option that can be added for teams who draft a player, train him up and want his salary on "Bird Rights" it wouldn't help lower less competitive teams unfortunately but could slow the skill drain from the game?

Very much feels like since I last played (Years and years ago) Some slight quality of life improvements have been made, but not enough to keep the lower grades engaged. The game runners have done a great job adding and tweaking since I last played.

I understand that eventually all players must retired. Its just sad to see a level of good players be even unatainable financially for a team thats been glass ceilinged at Div II for 7 seasons, let alone a team thats probably bobbed up and down between div ii and div iii 3-4 times

Hello



In the NHL they have a rule on salary, I just don’t know if know it will be abused or matches basketball.

Salary Arbitration: If a team and a restricted free agent cannot agree, a neutral judge decides the salary. During this formal process, the team's legal/management side is required to present a case arguing why the player's performance or stats mean they deserve a lower salary.

Maybe some of that can used in our free agent market.,