BuzzerBeater Forums

(315010.68)

I believe all that can be fixed by single (maybe not trivial) fix, the curve of the exponential slope needs to be refined.

Increase of salary with every next level of particular skill is bigger and bigger. This increase of salary is too big on the highest levels of skills currently. Should be lower. The exponential slope of formula, which counting salary basing on should be less curved.



Last edited by kozlik4 at 07/21/2022 15:42:05

It has been said already, but I will reiterate - just decrease the exponential coefficient so that top player salaries (250-300k right now) decrease ~20% to 200-240k. This will decrease all players' salaries ofc but lower salaries will be decreased less, thus effectively making top players more cost-efficient and will improve their value in two different ways.

If it were up to me I wouldn't touch anything else in the formula for two reasons:

1) Because it is fast and easy to implement and convenient to test that way and the chances of "unleashing hell" are minimal

2) Because it is better for the game to maintain a certain level of discrepancy in the cost/effectiveness of skills. Otherwise one would basically just need to know the salary to know how effective the player is/could be.

I like the idea of decreasing the exponential coefficient.

Additionally, to comment on changing other things in the salary formula, if there is a change to how much different skills cost in comparison to another, this change would need to take place slowly over the course of 10 seasons in order to give managers appropriate time to adjust their training plans accordingly.

Training in this game requires years of planning, so a quick change to how much certain skills cost could ruin years of work by managers as their builds quickly become less effective.

Last edited by Mediocrity at 07/21/2022 16:22:03

My next question is, is the difference between top tier Players and lower tier Players too much?

That depends on how big "you" want the gap between teams at the top and bottom is too.
The bigger the gaps for that, the bigger the gap between top teams and lower teams, and from that, less competitiveness overall all around, IMO. I'm guessing that's a big problem in getting newer players around to stick.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion

I'm not the best to argue the specific exponential curve but it seems counter-productive to "over-train" players, since they grow way to expensive to maintain, as it is, so it seems like some fine-tuning is needed. Having said that, I'm all for having 1/2 superstars (possibly 3 but with greater risks/costs) and a solid/great supporting cast to succeed. Caps and revenue should also taken into account, since it's all interconected.

Having veterans mentoring rookies could be a way to change/help training? Sponsor/Owner goals at the beginning of the season for alternative revenue? Short term money loans that bite to make short term pushes? I'm sure there's lots of options to think about but staying put as it is doesn't seem to be sustainable.

Just throwing some things around

that suggestion would kill my team roster right off the bat unfortunately. :(

can I ask why choose 19 and 13 to be the threshold? it seems a bit random tbh...


From a philosophical point of view, I do hope we don't overly encourage balanced builds and allow extreme builds to compete without too much innate disadvantages :)

At the risk of being catastrophic, how about the staff wages being like the players ones? (fixed weekly, rising in the offseason).

I suppose it would impact the staff market greatly (which currently seems like a huge economy drain, rightfully or not) but the "gains" and even the potential "savings" on eventually not having to constantly hire new staff could be funneled towards the superstar players/overall roster, maybe? I'm probably not having a full view of the effects but feel free to let me know

Also, if you want to add some strategy or what not to it, maybe the coaches could have a stronger (and likewise weaker) offensive/defensive strategy, if it makes sense of course.

It's not because it's bad for you that the suggestion is bad ;)

Which is why my real argument is not "it's bad for me" but "it would likely kill the more extreme supportive builds"

Maybe the salary adjustment I propose is not the good one but the main idea is that the top players should remain expensive (because they make the difference (like Nan Dinghui) but the complement players should be less expensive (like Dai Furen for example that I consider as a complement player). In my team Guillaume is a complement player

I understand where you are coming from and don't disagree with the general philosophy. However, I wanted to point out that under the proposed structure, this is actually likely to hurt supporting guys like Furen - for the reason that guys like Furen, or Shunxian, have their specialist attributes quite high (which means high salary coefficient) and other (offensive) attributes significantly lower (which means it will not enjoy the low coefficient range you are proposing on those attributes). The end product will make these player quite a bit less appealing salary wise compared to the "balanced" builds where every attributes is 18 to take full advantage of the proposed lower coefficient.

while I have nothing against those balanced builds, I do sincerely hope the variety of builds available on the market is maintained or even expanded, rather than having everyone training for exactly the same build again :)