BuzzerBeater Forums

Boycott and total dislike are head to head. It's starting to be clear that a draft improvement, no matter how small, is perceived as the top change by those who voted

Last edited by Lemonshine at 12/13/2016 10:01:20 AM

People seem surprised.

This is how it will play out:
1. Raising the salary floor and more importantly the fans boycott will incentivise some managers to spend on players.
2. This will push prices even higher.
3. In a higher price environment managers will cut the payroll further.
4. We will all level down towards the salary floor and we will make the same average weekly profit we were making last season.
5. At some point the average level will either reach the salary floor or find a balance because everyone is employing half trained or lower potential players with lower salary

I don't know how low they want us to go by making changes that keep having the same effect. I mean, BB-Ryan demonstrated the ability to understand this, I'm not sure why the others would not be able to understand it. If they do understand then they are pushing for this on purpose and they should realise it will do absolutely nothing to the transfer market.

Also the BBs need to stop looking at the demand side as if it's only cash saved and weekly income. If you're under the salary floor you have every incentive to convert your cash into player assets: the incremental cost of having players rather than cash is zero in that case AND players do not lose value due to inflation.

Also at some point they will have to understand that you don't fix this just fiddling and fiddling and fiddling with the demand side without ever touching the supply side. You can easily speed up point 5. above and make it less painful if you just increase the training speed, which, it shouldn't surprise anyone, would also boost the value of training...

Last edited by Lemonshine at 12/13/2016 11:33:16 AM

Also at some point they will have to understand that you don't fix this just fiddling and fiddling and fiddling with the demand side without ever touching the supply side. You can easily speed up point 5. above and make it less painful if you just increase the training speed, which, it shouldn't surprise anyone, would also boost the value of training...

Agree x10000!

A like ball for lemonshine...thats another example on how grave the situation has become ;)

Great post! I think, though, the best way to deal with this situation is by letting managers train more players.

If we just speed up training it might just end up making all players better. Sure you'll be able to afford better quality players but you'll also need better players to able to compete with everyone else. For instance a player considered "Div 1 quality" now would of course become cheaper if we speed up training, but then since faster training allows you to make better players, he may no longer be considered Div 1 quality.

If we let managers train more players then what we do is make more good players available for everyone, without changing the player quality needed to succeed at each level.

The ones you and the user before you said are all solutions. Train more players at lower speed is one solution, but you need to understand whether users will take that option. They will take it if it does make sense financially and from a competitive point of view. Today that isn't the case.

At the moment 2 position training is about 2/3 of the speed on 1 position think. So technically it is already more efficient overall to train 5 or 6 players in 2 position training than 2-3 players in single position from a pure 'skill increase' perspective. The problem is that with 2 position is impossible to cap high potential players as you noted. So it needs to makes sense financially which is the reason why 2 position training is not all that popular right now. If a high potential player capped using 1 position training generates about the same profit as 2 lower potential players capped with 2 position training in about the same time, then it would be perfect.

Obviously the relative value of 2 vs 1 position changes over time depending where the market goes. If you make 2 position very good a lot of people will start using it and when we start having more mid level players 6-8 seasons down the line, the price for those players will likely go down reducing the profitability.

This may be better than increasing all training speed because you will cater to the teams training "normal" guys those with star-perennial allstar potential and you create more trained players, we need both. It's not easy to get it right so that the choice between high potential + 1 position and lower potential + 2 position isn't lopsided either way, but if I have to choose, I'd choose that the 2 position option becomes the more prominent of the 2 (so the opposite of today). U21 players will still need the 1 position option to be same as today.

To be honest the way things have been in the game I think an improved 2 position training will be a hard sell, but some people will pick it up especially at lower levels.

Last edited by Lemonshine at 12/14/2016 4:37:13 AM

If we just speed up training it might just end up making all players better.

Yes that's partly true. It is true for players who are not capped (and I agree that some are not trained up to their potential). If everyone always capped his players, we'd end up capping earlier and moving on to other trainees.

The end goal is clear though: one way or another more players need to be created than we are currently creating. And possibly not by force but by giving a valid option to managers or improving one that is already there.