BuzzerBeater Forums

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

EGM-Foto [discord]
All skills have more than 60 players in the transfer market with a value of legendary but three, jump range (2), passing (1) and rebounding (7). Any intention of make those three skills cheaper, so users can try different buildings?
A: Not as such. Due to the way the formula is structured, we add weights for each skill per position calculation.

ElectricTriangles [forum]
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?
A: Yes, more on that in the news post.

GROUP 6 - GE vs salary-formula fixes

Big city [forum] - The tactical paradox
If specialists still work on the court , why penalize them with high salaries instead of fixing the match engine. A lot would see this as charging a.tax for winning a match or a a small club tax for defeating better players within game perimeters given to start not loopholes as it being stated as. To be clear , Because they trained their player better than the next?
A: I'm afraid I don't really understand the question.

LynxBK [forum]
If I play a guard with high IS and low RB at the PF position on offense, are they matching up against the opposing PF for the rebound after a miss (provided that the opponent was playing m2m defense). If not, will you address this as a possible change for the GE so that such tactic will be heavily penalized.
A: Rebound calculations are very complex, so there is never just simple matchups involved, but the ratios do lean towards them in such cases. These are not considered as candidates for change for now.

TonyC [forum] - GE vs Salary changes
Do you have a framework for deciding when a problem should be fixed by a salary formula update vs changing the GE? Theoretically, you could "solve" the SB big problem by making it less effective in the GE. Curious what you can share on this and what it means moving forward
A: The whole SB problem was created through salary formula changes long ago, with badly understood changes. The best way to fix a salary formula mess is by modifying the salary formula. If these turn out to be unsatisfactory, we might turn to the GE in the future.


Last edited by BB-Marin at 8/6/2026 1:21:24 PM

Aries [forum]
Hello, Marin.
I noticed that salary/potential changes didn't cover Outside defense. To many people, this is a skill that is not weighted properly in formulas. I'll give examples from the old formula:
If player has higher OD than JS, he's leaning to pg position. In that position his cost for OD is 67% higher than JS
If player has higher JS than OD, hes leaning to sf position. In that position JS cost is 223% percent higher than OD
This creates imbalance and is the primary reason why games in top level are so defensive. You can fit more OD in your perimeter player's cap than JS.
Second thing with OD is PF formula. It gives more than four times more weight to JS than to OD. Having a guardlike OD on your bigs is what makes 3-2 zone so strong and it really makes little sense why it is so cheap on them. Also if JS was lower cost, it would help traditional offensive bigs trying to reach high IS. Right now JS for PF costs almost twice as much as it does for PG
What is your opinion on increasing OD costs and reducing JS costs and are you considering on updating formulas in future? Obviously the engine could be tweaked later. The idea is to give proper weight to strongest skill in game and to give people an equal chance on training offensive players. The way it is now, game will continue to be very defensive at top level
Also in regards to reducing elastics, you mentioned some speed bumps, so that there is no loss of training. I don't think it makes sense to buff it for older players that already used elastic effect. Just gives them advantage for no reason. So what do you think about these speed bumps being restricted to younger players?

A: We will consider these OD costs in the future, since we now finally have the tools and the ability to tune the salary formula properly. We are aware of the problem that having high defense is easier than high offense, so we'll try to compensate for that. Elastics were reduced only marginally, so there is no need for any speed bumps.

GROUP 7 - Training pipeline / sacrifice model / NT-U21 development

Big city [forum] - Stunted growth
4.Stunted growth : The new formula players hit their potential cap faster., My question is why create a economic system where managers must internally stop training a draft pick. Or a player So they can afford them long term.
A: Think of it as a soft salary cap. Going overboard is unrealistic and should cost you. It is then your decision to create and keep an unviable build. You can do it, but you need to decide when it no longer makes sense.

Big city [forum] - Destroying a pipeline
5.Destroying a pipeline: Old training. Blueprints are obsolete leaving many veterans unable to teach new managers how to build correctly., Would it be fair to say this update can ruin all NT?U21. Talent pipeline that has been built over the last few seasons.?
A: No, that is an overexaggeration. Managers will adapt, solutions will be found and the changes are not as extreme as they seem at first glance. The top talent will still stay at the top, but there will be a slow shift towards more realistic builds.

Big city [forum] - The Death of the Sacrifice Model
If the new update allows players to hit their ceiling significantly faster through primary training, does it completely break the traditional "sacrifice model" of top-tier competition?
To be clear:
Does this mean elite managers can now hyper-train generational talent while staying safely entrenched in top leagues, eliminating the historic need to endure relegation cycles, rebuilding years, or roster compromises? If top clubs no longer have to sacrifice short-term success to build long-term talent, how is structural parity maintained across the league pyramid?
A: If anything, I think the changes make staying on top slightly more difficult, and we'd love to disincentivise the sacrifice model, as it has nothing to do with sports or real life competition.

Last edited by BB-Marin at 8/6/2026 1:22:10 PM

Big city [forum] - Killing innovation
2.Killing innovation : Community. Guides and unique builds were discovered through years and years of hard work by Communities not loop holes , By those who had no guides to go by .By forcing to train balanced players with no guide now. Would this seem as dictating how to train players or favoring an element of the game none truly knows without a blueprint given to succeed.
A: I have loads of confidence in our managers and their ability to create new guides and adapt. The changes have been implemented to give managers more choice, and not for them all to be forced into doing just one thing or fail.

Big city [forum] - Rich get Richer
3,Rich get Richer: Spiking the cost of a specialized weapon and their counter completely prices out small market teams. How can a lower budget manager compete with legacy clubs when their bankroll or better understanding of the game absorb all these new way more fluently than the rest. Too be clear with this, Basically forcing small clubs to sell to the rich.
A: I don't see it that way. Lower tier teams get the highest salary decreases and benefit the most. If anything, this is a step towards levelling the playingfield.

GROUP 8 - The "tonight" second update: what exactly changes

LynxBK [forum]
I don't understand what will they do tonight.
What are they doing to the salary formula for the guards and SF?
- revert the changes to the salary for guards and SF?
- increase the weigh of IS and SB and keep the increased weigh of ID guards and SF from the first change?
- increase the weigh of IS and SB and revert the previously increased weigh of ID for guards and SF?
Nothing was said about the salary formula for PF and C, so
- will they keep the previously increased weigh of SB for the bigs?

A: The second update mostly did two things: lower the cost of ID for guards, increase the cost of IS and SB for guards and SFs. Other positions stayed basically the same.
EDIT: ID not OD! Also, IS and SB became more costly comparing to both the old formula and the first version of the new one, but the ID cost reduction was only in comparison to the first version of the new formula, not the old one.

Last edited by BB-Marin at 8/7/2026 3:11:00 AM

STANDALONE QUESTIONS

ned [forum]
Marin why using discord instead the official page to comunicate with the users?
A: Discord is a modern chat option, one of many used by most companies to talk to their customers. It is more convenient and is a standard today. When we build an in-website alternative that's good enough, we can switch back. In the meantime, we will try to keep the forums alive too.

knecht [forum]: When will you close the JR loophole?
Lord Dick Em Down [forum]: What JR loop hole, most players cap out at 13-14????
knecht [forum, reply]: If you take a close look at the transfer market and the ultra high skilled players, you'll get a feeling there are a few more "loopholes" to build players around. I think the guys running the updates picked the wrong tweaks to get things done.
A: If we identify more issues, we will try to address them. In the meantime, we are trying to switch to a more universal salary formula which makes loopholes harder to create by design.

RHTM [forum]
Will the TV Contract and salary floor for season 73 reflect the updated salaries? Not sure about the usual timing but I think the salary floor already changed.
Yes, they are based on the new numbers.

TonyC [forum] - D1 vs lower-division salary trend
It seems that overall, salaries stayed mostly flat but that hides a trend that D1 teams/players mostly saw increases while lower divisions mostly saw decreases. Was this intentional and what was your goal here?
The goal is to level the playing field and incentivize longer rosters. It should help lower division teams with their economies.

Peristeri Thunder(II) [discord] - answered
Q: is there any skill that had a decrese? because almost everyone had huge increses in their salaries
A: (Discord)Most skills did. They are more spread out so the effects are not as visible.
Also, this is proven by the total salary mass decrease of almost 2%.

Ariane [forum]
Hi Marin!
After the draft, I have noticed some discrepancies between the scouting reports and the generated rookies, for example B+ rookies having a higher salary than A- rookies for the same position (I'm talking about the salary before the update) or rookies scouted as SG that were in fact SF once generated. Could it be that the scouting was initially based on the old formula and that during the season it switched to the new one?
Given the new salary formula, will you also change the evaluations for the rookies during scouting?
A: Yes, this is exactly what happened. New draftees will be generated using the new formula.

berebucegi [discord] - answered
Q: ok so my SBlocker got +10k salary, will it increase again next season ? or this is it
A: He might, but we will first reassess if this is enough.

Ubiond [discord] - answered
Q: DMI formula also changed? I wonder since we have a DMI to GS formula that fits GS decimals
A: Yes, since DMI is based on a hidden attribute which has changed. We will try to set it to a similar level as before.

Last edited by BB-Marin at 8/6/2026 1:24:26 PM

A: The second update mostly did two things: lower the cost of OD for guards, increase the cost of IS and SB for guards and SFs. Other positions stayed basically the same.

Last answer should be ID not OD right? To avoid more confusion.

Last edited by Jeründerbar at 8/6/2026 5:41:17 PM

Honestly, I think these changes are a real step backward for BB. You misidentified the actual "loopholes" and ended up baking in new imbalances instead — making OD even cheaper, for example. Have fun tuning a system that used to be flawed and is now broken, for the next 20 years.

By introducing facilities, you opened a door that led to these bizarre player builds. Looking at Austria's national team player requirements gives me a headache — in real life, players like that show up once in a generation, but in BB every national team player has to be a hybrid of LeBron and Jokic, and thanks to the "natural" development of their FT skill - with the help of facilities - they're basically destined to end up as Steve Nasc-level free throw shooters.

TSP values above 130 shouldn't be possible, period. Same with skills above 20. I honestly don't get what the team was thinking. It's like Ferrari releasing an EV — and completely missing the point of the brand.

Ty very kindly for your time to go over all questions posted here in the forum.
I was very surprised to learn OD got a discount for guards. Time for more Tony Allen's then.

Last edited by LynxBK at 8/6/2026 4:46:27 PM

Hi Marin,

Thank you for taking the time to answer the community's questions and for continuing to engage with us on these updates.

As a newer manager stepping into this game, I’ve spent a lot of time reading the history on the forums. I am honestly so grateful and humbled to just walk in the lanes that this incredible community has spent decades paving and building. But looking at how things are being handled right now leaves me feeling genuinely sad for them and sad overall.

It feels a bit like a person making every single payment on a car for years, treating it like their own, only to have someone sneak up in the dead of night, take the keys back because "you didn't actually pay for it," and then tell them to "find a way to work." You hand out the keys and the sandbox to build these rosters, but without a full blueprint for every player type, the community had to reverse-engineer the math through sheer dedication no loop holes even if the player’s are kinda wacky. We all have to understand nothing by chance nothing is pure,. But To watch managers pour years of their lives into building amazing athletes, only for you to take the keys, wipe the drawing boards clean, and say "No, that's illegal/unrealistic, /abuse of code”—it just feels wrong.

Also, on the point of realism: given how long this game has been around, evolution is natural. Over time, evolution creates more refined, beautiful, and better versions of things. A lot of folks might say this new evolution of player costs less in some areas while delivering more overall value—and honestly, I don't see how a better, more evolved version of the game is a bad thing overall! But calling those master-crafted player builds "unrealistic" just doesn't sit right when that progression is the natural result of struggle throughout the years of game age minds within the community and evolution of it.

I understand you missed or skipped a couple of the tougher tactical questions, but that's okay—the under-the-hood math is deeply complex.

Thank you again for your time, your patience, and for keeping the game moving forward. It's a wonderful world to step into, even if the garage feels a little colder tonight.

Last edited by Big city at 8/6/2026 4:57:34 PM