BuzzerBeater Forums

I feel sorry for you in a way, but I spent an average of 30K a week until this season and I have not got 1 very good draftee yet. This season I spent 30K TOTAL (3 weeks with 10K) and 2 out of the 3 that were scouted twice is 5 stars, A and A-, 2 and 3 star potential. Some TO's but perhaps I get lucky this year around, since I had such a bad season. I had believed that I would do better, or I will have invested more weeks with 10K. But I don't see the point of investing 40K unless I am certain to finish 7th or 8th in my conference. Or if I have a lot of money and no idea on what to spend them on... It would be fun to train a very good NT prospect though...

Last edited by Svett Sleik (U21-Scout Norge) at 8/24/2009 10:48:36 AM

This must be something wrong? Are we done scouting this season?

Jepp, and you can find your list via (Norsk) Regler -> Draften og der er draftredigering. Good luck!

I have 7 players with 2 stars scouted twice and 2 with one star scouted twice. None with 5 stars... Must be a joke.

Well you don't have to draft those. At least you know who not to draft. I went totally blind 2 seasons ago with a similar situation and accidentally hit the jackpot then.

to me:

- 29 reported
- 5 balls: 5, none with second report
- 4 balls: 6, 1 with second report
- 3 balls: 9, 2 with second report
- 2 balls: 8, 7 (seven!) with second report
- 1 ball: 1 (luckily...)

I posted a proposal in BB-Italy forum, suggesting to introduce a weight for a second look based on the results of first. I don't think anybody but a noob will put a 1 ball on top of a list, even with A+/5 balls out of second report. If you want details, I can translate it: an ease (?) improvement that will keep principles (when you draft, you bet in some sense) but reduce them and increase managerial control.

Let me add that I drafted 3 times with good/very good results, so I cannot say I am unsatisfied. But a managerial game should have some random and something realistic: that's unrealistic (or some NBA team will sink soon ).

but in this case you had to rebalance the points and maybe reduce it, maybe a total new system would better or stay with the old one which works at least ;)

but in this case you had to rebalance the points and maybe reduce it, maybe a total new system would better or stay with the old one which works at least ;)

that always depends on how the engine is written, I can just figure out.

A new system designed from scratch requires a long analysis. This sort of patch, although complex, would not much change current practices.

A thing that works is not enough to me. This is a BB point of view too, otherwise the old GE would have never been changed. And that change is far more complex than this one.

To me, better to reduce the number of observees but have more quality than having this sort of lottery. I can understand that the number of 5- or 1-balls depend on lucky, as in RL, but paying for things I don't need (why massively spending for second observation on players that will never ever be part of the game?) is a nonsense in a managerial game. IMHO.

maybe those double scouted guys are, the buys from your hood or people you see when again, if the scout is on the road to watch another player ;)

The thing with the redunction is that you maybe get 2/3 scouting points will work, but gcounting with 2/3 scouting points for example don't look pretty familiar to me.

maybe those double scouted guys are, the buys from your hood or people you see when again, if the scout is on the road to watch another player ;)

The thing with the redunction is that you maybe get 2/3 scouting points will work, but gcounting with 2/3 scouting points for example don't look pretty familiar to me.

no option to tele-transfer scouts and avoid that ;)

Less scouting points for better quality, it's a fair bid.

I love this site a lot. I've got 5 people to join and 4 of them love it, but I have to say, the scouting and draft process is by far the worst part of BB.

I suggested this before:

48 players, yah.

14 weeks of scouting.

At most, there's say 12 players in one position, but I'm guessing it's pretty even right? (9-10 per position)

For 5k, you can scout one position per week that position would yield four players. Hence, you'd have to scout one position 3 weeks (5k for the first, 10k for the second and 15k for the third) just to be sure you've scouted all the players, say SF.

Then after 3 weeks of scouting SF, you find out there are 9.

5*-1
4*-3
3*-2
2*-2
1*-1

For 20k, it takes you 1 week to scout any player of your choosing again. Say the 5*, and you get a stat line for two different games he played.

That's 4/14 weeks gone, but let's say you really want a SF, so you scout all three 4*.

7/14 gone.

Then you can move on to another position. Scouting say PF, and the cycle would continue. Then after a full season of scouting you'd have a report on only the SF and PF. Say 17 in all, and two reports on 8 of them.

Or, you could scout every position and it'd take you all 14 weeks with a small chance of missing 1-5 players.

Thoughts?


Last edited by Plotts at 8/24/2009 7:56:32 PM

Well a friend drafted a guy as SG and now that player belongs to Greek U21 NT as a PF. An other example: I drafted a player as a C and now after i train him as big man for 2 seasons is on Cyprus U21 as SF, with a new trainer who is training guards his height only 6'3. Considering those examples u r idea cant work.

P.S. My draft looks bad too.