BuzzerBeater Forums

I think this would be a fascinating experiment.

I wonder, though, if elite teams would just take you apart down low, with guards who are skilled enough to get the ball inside, and then their bigs would go to town on your non-existent ID.

I don't think there is a way to make a dominate team without just plain outfinancing people.

That wont happen for a new team that isn't daytrading. Just not possible....

Of course it isn't. If it was possible to train 6 HoF to their cap before some start declining then perhaps it would be possible, but training is simply too slow to build a competitive homegrown team for a top division. Or it would be possible, but with trainees not fulfilling their potential (i.e. stop training at 25yo and forego the option of hitting 140+ TSP).

The funny thing is that there is people who think that higher prices are good for training, but that's just shortsighted. The truth is high prices are only good if you train to sell, for example if you use training as a business to make money. If you train to hold, the money will not be your concern, the achievable skill-set will be and prices do not affect that in the slightest.



Last edited by Lemonshine at 7/5/2017 5:40:18 PM

Two defensive stats to stop one offensive inside.
One offensive stat to stop 4 outside....

This is the imbalance. So you train the 1 of the inside offense and the 1 of the outside defense the most...also the one that stops all the other outside stats also helps stop inside attack. It's one defense stat to stop everything

I pretty much agree with most of the thinking behind this, but I'd be most curious to see how much the lack of RB ends up hurting. I'd expect that you'd see a lot of putbacks converted at a pretty high percentage rate. It would be nice if second chance points and points in the paint were available stats, as an aside, to help quantify that.

People still don't get that the money in the bank is peanuts compared to the money they have in the form of players...

In any case, you guys should just accept that the point of my comment is that training is inadequate and prices are only relevant to training, if you want to substitute daytrading with training as THE way to make money in the game (aside from tanking).

Last edited by Lemonshine at 7/5/2017 5:50:45 PM

It would be nice if second chance points and points in the paint were available stats, as an aside, to help quantify that.

That would require a lot of fiddling when building a Moutlinho-like tool: the play-by-play in whichever form (including the source code for the web page) does not allow you to differentiate between putbacks and inside shots to the best of my knowledge.

Last edited by Lemonshine at 7/5/2017 5:42:33 PM

Do we really want any random manager coming into this game to emediatly be able to catch up to any team in the game that actually has spent rl years of time to achieve that position?

That's better than never being able to catch up because the economy is broken and there are no means to make enough money and catch up.

So if your question is in relation to the current state of the game the answer should be unequivocally YES and I would like the BBs and you, the staff, to understand this.

The same point could be made in general, as strategy and management games should reward ability or commitment not length of subscription. Older managers have more experience, have a built up arena, have player capital, have a lot going for them...that you guys want it to be hard or impossible for newer users to catch up is beyond illogical. The game is already hard as it is for new users, I think a lot of them quit not because they don't win games, but because they understand how long it will actually take them to be able to progress in the game and since they haven't invested much time yet, they have very little reason to stick around if they think the time is too long.

Last edited by Lemonshine at 7/6/2017 10:26:27 AM