BuzzerBeater Forums

Your greatest achievement has been bringing the community together, but against you.

Hello

That's already do-able. if you players is 65 and 225$ a week his trainer level will start there as well.It will increase though .( As it should given the formula there )

But my gripe with that is switching to trainer is the experience of the player does not go over. He will be basic .But I'm ok with it because it would damage the game and give unfair advantage. Yes trainer and training would be vastly cheaper. But it damages the core of the game.

Hello

Thank you for taking the time write the community.

My concern involves the intersection of trainer pricing and experience carry-over. While lower or contracted salaries would offer better financial stability, we must consider the impact on game parity. Long-time managers holding staff with extremely low salaries (e.g., $150/week) would gain an unfair advantage if these individuals also possessed elite training capabilities. Given that the market price for these 'legacy' staff members is currently inflated by specialized leagues, allowing high-level experience to carry over at low costs would create an insurmountable gap between veteran and newer managers

I suggest this formula

I propose implementing a Hybrid Salary Model for veteran trainers.

The goal is to provide a "loyalty discount" without creating an insurmountable advantage for legacy managers. My suggestions are as follows:

The Loyalty Cap: Allow managers to keep staff at their original lower salaries, but implement a Performance Ceiling. For example, a trainer with a $150/week salary could only provide up to Level 3 training benefits.

The "Elite Activation" Fee: To unlock Level 6 training on a legacy staff member, the manager must pay a "Contract Adjustment" that brings the salary closer to current market rates (perhaps a 25% discount compared to a new hire).

Inflation Scaling: Instead of a fixed salary forever, implement a small, predictable annual increase (e.g., 2%) for staff over a certain age. This keeps legacy staff affordable but prevents the "near-zero cost" issue that hurts game parity.

More things to consider and debate

Experience vs. Energy: As the trainer gets very old (e.g., 70+), their salary stays low, but their workload capacity drops. They might provide Level 6 training, but they can only train 2 players instead of 10.

Retirement Risk: The older the trainer, the higher the random chance they retire at the end of each season. This makes holding a "cheap" veteran a high-risk gamble rather than a guaranteed permanent advantage

So the sweet spot would 50-65.also make it possible to retire to hall of fame .

Thank you for you read.

Last edited by Big city at 4/10/2026 1:42:36 PM

The fix salary is a must or we couldnt predict where they are coming from or we get randoms n b3 higher salary floor would allow sixty.2 mph beginners and semi pro to shoot threes more consequence and frequentely

New managers should not be penalized. If one can recruit internally a staff member for minimal salary, so should all.

It’s actually quite fascinating to see this logic. For decades, the world told us we were too 'cheap' to spend a dime. Now, the moment we are ready to open our wallets and invest in 3rd or 4th teams to support our National Team, it’s suddenly a problem?

I guess we just can't win with some people: if we save money, we're 'stingy'; if we spend it to dominate the game, we're 'manipulating the system.'

At the end of the day, if supporting our NT makes us 'Pay to Win' in your eyes, then I guess we're just more committed to the grind than you are. See you on the court!