BuzzerBeater Forums

Question


Haven't you've already paid them,when you bought them. So bidding salaries is different than actual league salary's.

If we could look at that perspective, what do you think ?

Understandable

My rebuttal is this

I understand the distinction you're making between player contracts and staff employment in Buzzerbeater. However, I'd like to propose an alternative perspective. If the last salary payment for players can be seen as a form of severance pay or contractual obligation, couldn't a similar logic be applied to staff employment? After all, staff members are also essential to a team's success, and their termination can have significant impacts on the team's performance.

Perhaps the game's mechanics could be designed to treat player and staff contracts more similarly, with both involving a final payment upon termination. This could help create a more consistent and intuitive experience for team managers.

I'd appreciate your thoughts on this idea and whether there's a particular reason why player and staff contracts are treated differently in this regard.

I hope I haven't confused you further in this matter.

Thank. You for your reply.

These are insightful points on Buzzerbeater's staff and player management. The weekly salary increases indeed push managers to constantly reassess staff value and consider the training staff exploit you mention. A player severance fee could add strategic depth, making roster decisions more impactful. And you're right, major changes to staff mechanics likely hinge on the 'BB Codes' revamp, which naturally takes priority.

I still weight that since there’s an exploit or shall we call it loophole in hiring /firing. There needs to be solid remedy. All & all

Thank you for your valuable feedback.

Interestingly, replacing or firing a staff member requires paying one week's salary in severance, but that's not the case for players.
It seems like BB did this on purpose.
I wonder if there's a reason behind it?

I don't know the reason behind it.

I just thought that new teams might need to fire the players they started with, including star players.
If firing a player requires paying severance, that would be an extra cost for the new team.

Also, for teams that are close to going bankrupt, whether severance is needed might make a difference.
If severance is required, they might need to fire players one week earlier to avoid bankruptcy.

I notice that if we want to let a player leave the team, there are only two ways: sell or fire.
In normal situations, if firing a player still requires paying severance, it feels like a punishment compared to selling.

Back to tough's solution:

I propose a solution to this; any player that works for a team after their transfer acquisition commands to be paid, it’s only right since they need to make a livelihood. If player is let go before the economic update, the team that acquired him has to pay either their entire salary or a percentage (like 50%) of that salary for the week if they were to be let go before economic update.

For selling players, there's a rule: "You cannot offer a player for sale until he has been on your team for at least 4 days."
So there will definitely be at least one financial update.
Therefore, if a player is fired before the first financial update after joining the team, paying severance still seems reasonable.

However, I thought of a situation: when that financial update doesn't require paying the player's salary, it seems a bit unreasonable to still have to pay severance if the player is fired.