BuzzerBeater Forums

Hi Marin,

1. What's the aim of making IS more expensive for guards? Is this change going to affect cap too? Is limiting offensive skill going to reduce low-scoring matches?

2. Why not just to make it cheaper to train JR, PA for guards, IS for bigs? it would give freedom to choose or create new builds.

3. Do you think by eliminating those salary-effective "loopholes" will create more balance, but not a situation where higher salaries will be biggest factor of winning?

Also, do you think it's the right way to add these extra updates without any notice?

Has there been any other changes this offseason such as tweaking training or diminishing elastics?

What are future changes in the pipeline that are planned out?

- Training is disincentivised from a certain point because it hampers long term economic feasibility as salaries rise too much and lowers expeced transfer revenue. Some "almost" NT-like players with 150 TSP often only trade for a few thousand dollars, while some average 115TSP guy trades for way more.

In my opinion, the main point there is that there are too many "great players" and a very low amount of teams that can afford to pay them. Why? Because there are too many player with very high potencial.
If we want extraordinay players to be really valuated, they must be rare options that everyone (who can pay them) want in their teams. Now, it is like there many Lebrons, Tatums, Browns, Wembys,... and they do not have a transfer market.

On the other hand, 100% agree with that you only need 5 great players... this is another point that make an impact in the price. If 8 players were needed, each great team would need another 3 players.

Good season for everyone

same for JR. a world class guard can have a maximum of 15 JR, OD is way too dominant in this game.

(https://youtu.be/nblRY_drAeI?si=VIYJlmVA3qDupyKB)

Perhaps some of you will find this video helpful today...

My two big questions can be found in the back half of this 18-min chat about how the changes were handled.

This is a new formula but it was engineered to follow the old one in most regards. It is also intended to fix loopholes, as possible while adhering to the first principle. Most of the salary increases you are seeing are a result of training, though, with some builds becoming more expensive by design. Other builds have become cheaper, in order to offset that so the total salary mass is slightly less than what it would be. Leaving things as they are for too long led to the situation where there were obvious loopholes and the whole game was shifting to some very specific builds and strategies. It is always better to try and fix things, even if it means breaking some eggs in the process. The BB community does not like change, this is well known, but in this regard, change was needed and, in my opinion, too late even. I will give my best to explain the changes and the reasoning behind them in this Q&A, as well as what can be expected for the future.

GROUP 1 - Cap: will players cap sooner / is the cap changing?

Nowitzki (SLO NT) [forum]
1) Since the SB is costier now in terms of salary, is it going to consume more potential too? You have not touched the concern about ousting out lower potentials from mostly smaller NTs, the text is here: [link], but if this is correct, this is another step in the mentioned direction, if you ask me.

TonyC [forum] - Salary and Training Cap
If in the old world, a player generally hit their cap around $X salary, does that hold true under the new formula? If yes, does that mean that today's elite SB bigs and IS guards will be fundamentally impossible to create in the future because they would cap before they hit those builds due to the higher salary cost of those skills?

usual.suspect91 [discord]
ALSO VERY IMPORTANT, what is going on with our players CAP? We had players with 160k salary that now have 210k and they are trainees. Do you plan on changing the cap?

str77 [discord] - answered
Q: What about cap?

A: (From Discord, my answer to str77 two days ago) Cap is adjusted to emulate the same general levels as before. Since this is a new formula, there will be players that will hit the cap sooner than they would have before, and those are the exact ones that have their salaries increased comparing to what the old formula would have given them. On the bright side, basically the same amount (or slightly more) of players will hit their cap later than they would have, since their salaries decreased comparing to before.

Update since then, after reviewing data and code: The cap has been set at higher levels than before. It still stands that higher salary equals hitting the cap sooner, but since the cap is now generally set higher, most players will have more cap room.

GROUP 2 - Top-team economics: high salaries, exhaustion, income

Superheld [forum]
Thanks for taking the time, @Marin.
I am a very long term player of BB, started in season 4 and really enjoyed the game for many years. Thanks for contributing to this experience.
However, during the past years I feel the game is not progessing in a positive way any more.
My biggest concerns are the following:
- Having success in any higher league depends almost exclusively on the starting five. Backups hardly make a difference.
- Training is disincentivised from a certain point because it hampers long term economic feasibility as salaries rise too much and lowers expeced transfer revenue. Some "almost" NT-like players with 150 TSP often only trade for a few thousand dollars, while some average 115TSP guy trades for way more.
- Incentive to train your own draftees is minimal. My former draftee (today 153k salary) gets me lousy 11k marketing revenue (in D1).
Do you also feel that the game may improve in these points?
Without having thought everyting through in detail, I think that the game would benefit much from a hard player-salary cap of ~150k, combined with a significant increase in exhaustion.

js8 [forum]
With the changes affecting the salary of most players above 180k+, how do you expect B3 or top teams to run? With exhaustion implemented a few seasons back (good addition!) and now these salary hikes, but no extra source of income in the game, how do these teams function?

usual.suspect91 [discord]
So what are you planning to do with high level teams? Is the level in D1 teams supposed to lower, do we need to get our team budget lower? Are you planning to raise the income as an answer to the new salaries?

A: Starting 5 are the most important players, but there have been incentives to make short rosters less feasible. We will continue to make these changes and the role of subs will grow.

Training should be stopped before a player reaches too high a salary. Those players are trained and improved long after their age, at least in real life, would allow so. We could slow down training for older players even more but it would be very unpopular, we know our managers love their trainees and those green arrows on Fridays, so this is not planned. So, overtraining is a thing, and paying high salaries for such players is a good incentive on limiting that. As an undesireable consequence of overtraining we have a surplus of high salary players with very low value. This functions like a very soft salary cap, and managers are incentivised to find way to work within that system, so a hard cap is not necessary, but we will continue to make hoarding tax even higher and add other measures if necessary to level the playing field.

Training your own draftees also builds overextension tax space. Also, players with high salaries generate more merchandise, but it isn't linear, the effects are mostly hidden. There isn't much other incentive on keeping your own draftees, this is a trading game too, so most of them should be traded out to keep the team roster balanced.

Top teams like the ones in B3 are functioning well above their resonable economic power, but most can't keep that up for long (and with higher hoarding tax, it should be even shorter). How will they fare after the salary update? The same as before, it is the same for everyone, so adaptability will be key, since no income increases are planned. One key note: while players on the top end of the salary spectrum (180k+) mostly had their salaries increased, other, lower salary players had their salaries reduced. This will incentivise longer rosters and better salary budget handling. And don't forget; top salary teams only had their total salaries very marginally increased, we're talking low single digits in percentages.

Last edited by BB-Marin at 8/6/2026 1:18:05 PM

GROUP 3 - Does SB training now train IS?

Nowitzki (SLO NT) [forum]
2) Is SB training now training IS too? If so, what are the rough estimates or the ratio? More than ID, more than rebounding? If yes, at what expense - is SB training SB, ID or rebounding a bit slower or is overall SB training just a bit faster in general now? Thank you for your time!

belekas [discord] - answered
Q: will SB training give some increments to IS now?
A: (From Discord) Yes, slight though, and this is planned for this training update.
Now, after reviewing code: IS will be trained at the same level rebounding was, the tradeoff is both with ID and rebounding, to keep it all balanced.

GROUP 4 - ID on guards as a loophole (guard-formula changes)

js8 [forum]
Hi Marin. You've stated that there has been an increase to ID on guards - how is this changed expected to stop the current meta of high-IS guards and 3-2 zone with two SB bigs? One of the more important skills to defend these IS monsters is now suddenly a lot more expensive (ID for guards), so SB has become more important and 3-2 zone is certainly now the only viable option. Does this increase in ID, also make all-rounded SF's archetypes extinct as their salaries aren't maintainable?

Sakiz105 [discord] - answered
Q: did you or did you not change the cost of ID for guards?
A: (Discord, before the second salary update) Yes. This was one of the intended loopholes which needed fixing.
After revisiting the salary formula and the second salary update: We've reduced the ID effect on guard salaries as much as it is possible during the second salary update, but, like all skills, it can never be free.

Jeroen [discord] - answered
Q: I don't see much change in IS guards, was that not a loophole while ID was? Can you elaborate more why ID was deemed a loophole? Seemed to me like it was capped by the SF formula (unlike IS)
A: This needs more data to confirm, but I'll admit right away that not everything could be fixed at this one update, especially since we are trying to keep close to the old formula. It is a balancing act. ID is an important skill and is valued as such, but it should not be far from where it was in the old formula. I will check and confirm.
After revisiting the salary formula and the second salary update: Players with high OD and ID were considered too strong, but we decided the ID effect on guard salaries was too strong so we reduced it, while making IS and SB more costly for guards and SFs. These changes are part of a process, so there's no magic wand to fix all problems at once, while keeping relatively close to old salary numbers. But, all we can do is to try and keep the changes going in the right direction.

Last edited by BB-Marin at 8/6/2026 1:18:49 PM

GROUP 5 - IS on bigs vs guards / future formula direction / what is a loophole

Silver [forum]
Marin, it seems IS is a bit more inexpensive with bigs under the new formula, but as you've stated, some of the shifts to the guard formula were not ideal. Guard ID became more costly but the impact to IS was not significant.
Is this something you will continue to work on in future salary updates, making IS on bigs more viable and IS on guards more cost prohibitive? We're certainly in a strange state of the game at the moment where to run an elite inside offense you need shot blockers at the 1-2 and guards at the 3-5.

A: IS for guards was made more costly in the second salary update. Not by a lot, but as I said, the direction where we're going with the changes matters a lot. We are making all these changes to try and prevent illogical lineups (like shot blockers on 1 and 2, etc). More changes will be based on real data.

TonyC [forum] - Future plans
I know plans change, but what can you share about your expectations for future salary and GE updates? Do you anticipate penalizing IS and SB more in the future? Do you anticipate major GE updates in the next ~3 seasons?
A: Salary formula will continue to shift. The problem with the old formula was that it was very hard to predict and tune, while being incredibly complicated to read and modify. We've now moved on to a weights based formula which is much easier to tune and which can be simplified even more in the future. The idea is to track game trends and decide on changes based on those. Our short term plan is to make SB a little bit more costly, especially in the extremes, and long term plan is to shift towards a formula which rewards more rounded, logical builds that fit player archetypes better. IS changes will need more data, but I'm not against further changes there.
GE is undergoing a small overhaul - this season we're just fixing bugs, next season we might decide to make some real changes, like nerfing 3-2, if it proves necessary after the salary changes. There are no more specific plans for the GE.

Jeründerbar [forum]
1. What data will you look at to determine this salary change is a success or not (or needs more tweaking)?
A: It's hard to say exactly, but we can track usage of specific tactics, training types and market cost of players. All need to be taken into account, but it's now easier than ever to get high quality reports out from the database.
2. Did the total salary mass stay about equal through the 2nd update?
A: It went down almost 2%. Mostly on the middle to lower end of the spectrum. Link to the appropriate chart here: (https://ibb.co/kVGVs5Qt)
3. Can you elaborate more on the mentioned loopholes, or at least what you consider to be a loophole in general?
A: Loophole is player build that takes advantage of training a skill that does not affect player salary much, because other higher skills keep that player in a specific best position while making the player very useful in the GE. So, the prime example is a PG with high SB.

GM-Sergio [discord]
Can we expect more salary formula changes? Will traditional bigs playing at PF/C possibly have their IS cost lowered in the future? Will we be able to train high JR shooters to around 17 JR easier? What about passing on guards? Are all the formulas going to have a look taken at them eventually? Thank you
A: IS cost reductions for bigs or JR for guards are not planned, neither is passing, but there are no guarantees, the data analysis will tell us what to do. I don't think we'll ever make the formula public, if that's what you mean, but you will be able to figure it out eventually, up to a point.

Last edited by BB-Marin at 8/6/2026 1:20:13 PM