BuzzerBeater Forums

BB Global (English) > National Team?

National Team?

Set priority
Show messages by
This Post:
00
23982.56 in reply to 23982.44
Date: 4/13/2008 4:57:19 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
110110
You are concerned that the salary reduction will represent a gain financially to the team that has the NT player, but you must also consider how much money they are losing by training an old player.

Training a 22 year old to keep him in the NT will represent on average a X weeks delay on every pop, if compared to an 18 year old. It's like losing X weeks of training. And that's on every pop. Can you imagine how much money is lost like that? (X depends on the training and sevral factors, but you know what I mean)

No, I am 100% positive that salary reductions will not represent a financial advantage to clubs with NT players. They will only reduce the financial disavantage, and hopefully make it at least bareble, otherwise the whole NT system will collapse.


nobody force you to train a player for all his life, and you have another 4o5 slots (if you train 2rules) to make money with your young players.
and i think a strong player will give you more W, so you receive more cash.

the real problem, like Domenico said, is the farm, and BB will become like HT when farms arrive.



This Post:
00
23982.57 in reply to 23982.56
Date: 4/13/2008 5:02:44 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
506506
Farms will be here faster if there wouldn't be a reduction, because the salary of players will be that high, so that a normal team can't keep that player anymore. Then we will see the farm syndrom ;).

With a reduction some players might still be affordable in clubteams.

This Post:
00
23982.58 in reply to 23982.57
Date: 4/13/2008 5:11:14 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
110110
With a reduction some players might still be affordable in clubteams


the problem is this some.

an example:
i have an italian player with 40k of salary. you have a nigerian player with 50k of salary.
your player plays in NT, my player no because in italy there are stronger players.

so with the salary reduction maybe you pay 40k like me but your player is stronger than mine.
is this right? i don't think so

This Post:
00
23982.59 in reply to 23982.55
Date: 4/13/2008 6:52:40 AM
Le Cotiche
III.1
Overall Posts Rated:
777777
the problem is that, like it or not, monster players will exist. a french point guard was recently bought by a farm team, and quite a few big men play in teams whose only focus is on training them.

by not having wage reductions, what the game is saying is that NT players will have to come from farm teams, as nobody sane in his mind is going to pay a $80k salary for a single player.

now, if you want to stick your head in the sand and behave as if nobody will create farm teams, you're welcome to do so. I'd rather see game politics that discourage farming, but whatever. there might be more clever measures? sure, feel free to suggest one.


just increase merchandising for teams with NT players
the final effect would be the same, but it's a more realistic way to implement it IMO

This Post:
00
23982.60 in reply to 23982.11
Date: 4/13/2008 7:04:00 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
00
Good idea !

This Post:
00
23982.62 in reply to 23982.58
Date: 4/13/2008 12:19:29 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
506506
the problem is this some.

an example:
i have an italian player with 40k of salary. you have a nigerian player with 50k of salary.
your player plays in NT, my player no because in italy there are stronger players.

so with the salary reduction maybe you pay 40k like me but your player is stronger than mine.
is this right? i don't think so


My Nigerian player plays in the NT and he gets an injury for 7 weeks, while your players has a smaller chance to get injured. Due to his injury i'm trowing away $350k, because he can't play for 7 weeks. Is this right? I don't think so.

What I'm trying to say is that with National Teams there are and will always be inequalitys.

This Post:
00
23982.63 in reply to 23982.56
Date: 4/13/2008 12:53:25 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
1616
nobody force you to train a player for all his life

Yes, nobody is forced. And nobody is motivated to do it either. On the contrary, there are only disadvantages in doing so (higher risk of injuries, inefficient training). So who will? Only dumb users and farm teams. it's easy to blame the farms, and I don't like them either, but to avoid them we have to do something to prevent them! And the only thing to do is reducing the disadvantages in training NT players so more real teams will be willing to do it.

and you have another 4o5 slots (if you train 2rules) to make money with your young players.

Wasting 1 slot in an old player is already losing money.

and i think a strong player will give you more W, so you receive more cash.

Wrong, because with inefficient training your whole team becomes worse. You are making one player better slowly, while your team could be improving much faster. So your NT player gets better, your teams gets worse than it could be, so you don't win more W's than you would.

the real problem, like Domenico said, is the farm, and BB will become like HT when farms arrive.

Yes, I agree, that's what we are trying to prevent here, and for that we need measures that will compensate at least a little against all the disadvantages that we have now.

Last edited by raonne at 4/13/2008 12:54:43 PM

This Post:
00
23982.64 in reply to 23982.62
Date: 4/13/2008 12:54:36 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
110110
My Nigerian player plays in the NT and he gets an injury for 7 weeks, while your players has a smaller chance to get injured. Due to his injury i'm trowing away $350k, because he can't play for 7 weeks. Is this right? I don't think so


The NT pay the salary for the length of the injury.. like Spain with Toronto for Garbajosa.

or play NT match in arcade mode. there are other ways.

because if the player doesn't get an injury, i don't see why someone should pay his salary..

but we have different opinions, what can we do? :D

This Post:
00
23982.65 in reply to 23982.64
Date: 4/13/2008 1:39:52 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
506506
only the salary for the length of the injury isn't fair as well. The player can't play during those weeks, which could have way more financial damage. (f.e. the team loses matches which they normally won't etc).

Teams need to get rewarded for the risk of the extra injuries, or they should have an option to say 'no' to the election of that player.

This Post:
00
23982.66 in reply to 23982.65
Date: 4/13/2008 1:42:19 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
110110
or they should have an option to say 'no' to the election of that player.


i prefer this option.

like Totti did with the italian NT

Advertisement