BuzzerBeater Forums

Suggestions > Draft Results

Draft Results

Set priority
Show messages by
From: Pieriku
This Post:
00
90762.1
Date: 5/20/2009 11:01:37 AM
Olympus Team
IV.4
Overall Posts Rated:
4949
The Draft results are not enough rewarding for those who spend a lot of money in it.
A team that didn't spend any money in their scout can see the 20 results. Why do they have these results ? They didn't have any scout looking for youngsters, therefore they should have no result. Today, they are almost sure to get a not too bad player for their first choice (one that can be sold for money). So, it's all benefits for them.
And a team who spend 40k per week in the Draft (600k in one season) should have all the info about the players. It's very difficult otherwise to have enough luck to get a player that will worth 600k. Almost better to buy one in the market.

This Post:
00
90762.2 in reply to 90762.1
Date: 5/20/2009 11:03:41 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
303303
Even if you don't send scouts out you can see guys on TV or the internet.

NO ONE at this table ordered a rum & Coke
Charles: Penn has some good people
A CT? Really?
Any two will do
Any three for me
Any four will score
Any five are live
This Post:
00
90762.3 in reply to 90762.2
Date: 5/20/2009 11:08:19 AM
Olympus Team
IV.4
Overall Posts Rated:
4949
Well, since the scouts are not even able to know the height or age of a player that they supervised, I'm not sure we can so much rely on reality.
But seeing so many results for someone who didn't spend a penny in the scouting doesn't give much motivation in spending money in it.
I see more and more people who decide to stop spending money in the scouting because of that.

From: ZyZla

This Post:
00
90762.4 in reply to 90762.3
Date: 5/20/2009 1:18:45 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
2222
Well, since the scouts are not even able to know the height or age of a player that they supervised, I'm not sure we can so much rely on reality.
But seeing so many results for someone who didn't spend a penny in the scouting doesn't give much motivation in spending money in it.
I see more and more people who decide to stop spending money in the scouting because of that.


I agree they could get maybe something like 5 players and only one game played statistics, nothing else... There should be some balance...

Last edited by ZyZla at 5/20/2009 1:19:02 PM

ZyZla - ZyZlūnas ZyZlavotas ~c(=
From: ZyZla
This Post:
00
90762.5 in reply to 90762.4
Date: 5/21/2009 11:04:04 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
2222
I wanna that there would be possible to choose which positions players my scout should choose to visit twice mostly. I`m training PG/SG and spending 40k/week all the time and I can`t believe that my scouts mostly visited twice just C/PF position players. I have got just one or two PG/SG players visited with 4-5 balls rating and plenty of C/PF players... I don`t actually need them to be visited twice.

As well this would make you loose sometimes if you choose you priority on some positions cause scouts will visit all the 1-2 balls having players twice before he`ll start look at other positions. With all this there should be possible to choose that scouts still would visit them randomly if someone doesn`t want to miss some good player from positions they are not training.

As well as I wanna see season average under last played game stats cause players are playing all the season not just one game per year and this would provide user who spend a lot on scouting with more accurate info to make choices from.

ZyZla - ZyZlūnas ZyZlavotas ~c(=
This Post:
00
90762.6 in reply to 90762.2
Date: 5/21/2009 12:04:57 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
744744
Even if you don't send scouts out you can see guys on TV or the internet.



This precise argument suggests that we should know WHAT AGE those players are without having to send scouts to look at them twice.


The draft sucks. Defending it with imagination does this game a disservice.

Last edited by darykjozef at 5/21/2009 12:05:40 PM

(http://www.buzzerbeater.com/community/fedoverview.aspx?fe...)
Keep your friend`s toast, and your enemy`s toaster.
This Post:
00
90762.7 in reply to 90762.6
Date: 5/21/2009 12:17:46 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
303303
Even if you don't send scouts out you can see guys on TV or the internet.



This precise argument suggests that we should know WHAT AGE those players are without having to send scouts to look at them twice.


The draft sucks. Defending it with imagination does this game a disservice.


I don't see the "precise argument" involving age at alll:

The Draft results are not enough rewarding for those who spend a lot of money in it. A team that didn't spend any money in their scout can see the 20 results. Why do they have these results ? They didn't have any scout looking for youngsters, therefore they should have no result. Today, they are almost sure to get a not too bad player for their first choice (one that can be sold for money). So, it's all benefits for them. And a team who spend 40k per week in the Draft (600k in one season) should have all the info about the players. It's very difficult otherwise to have enough luck to get a player that will worth 600k. Almost better to buy one in the market.


There's a short reference to having all information available to those that spend $40K/week, and that's about it.

If I responded to your thread with what I said, then your response would make more sense. Here it's bashing me for God knows what reason.

NO ONE at this table ordered a rum & Coke
Charles: Penn has some good people
A CT? Really?
Any two will do
Any three for me
Any four will score
Any five are live
This Post:
00
90762.8 in reply to 90762.7
Date: 5/21/2009 12:35:58 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
744744
The precise argument was this:

Even if you don't send scouts out you can see guys on TV or the internet.


So if I can see guys on TV or the internet, shouldn't I know things like their age? Their height? Either we are able to use means other than scouting or we aren't.

Sorry if you felt I was bashing you. I've just felt the draft was heavily flawed for a long time and vented at the first guy I saw defending it.

(http://www.buzzerbeater.com/community/fedoverview.aspx?fe...)
Keep your friend`s toast, and your enemy`s toaster.
This Post:
00
90762.9 in reply to 90762.8
Date: 5/21/2009 1:31:10 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
154154
Age is a sure bet. 18 yrs. old is always better than 19 yrs. old. It could be dais it decides whether it way a good pick or a bad pick. Do teams pre-draft know who is a good pick and who is not? No. You can get a perfect simulation of reality and this game surely doesn´t try to do so. Otherwise the game would be unplayable.

This Post:
00
90762.10 in reply to 90762.9
Date: 5/21/2009 1:37:23 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
744744
An 18yo benchwarmer is not better than a 19yo perennial all-star, and never, ever will be.

It could be dais it decides whether it way a good pick or a bad pick.


I have no idea what that means.

We're not asking for a perfect simulation of reality, or at least I'm not. We're just asking for it to make sense.

(http://www.buzzerbeater.com/community/fedoverview.aspx?fe...)
Keep your friend`s toast, and your enemy`s toaster.
This Post:
00
90762.11 in reply to 90762.8
Date: 5/21/2009 1:41:48 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
303303
Sorry if you felt I was bashing you. I've just felt the draft was heavily flawed for a long time and vented at the first guy I saw defending it.


That's fine, though I'd rather be called an idiot for accuracy's sake.

NO ONE at this table ordered a rum & Coke
Charles: Penn has some good people
A CT? Really?
Any two will do
Any three for me
Any four will score
Any five are live