BuzzerBeater Forums

I have to agree. The blank lineup seems like an odd thing to target. If you want people to train then make it worth it to invest and train younger players. Just make higher quality rookies, there is no reason a drafted player be unplayable in league games above D5. Why shouldn't players come out with prolific or sensational level skills? Why would a D2 team invest in an 18 year old if it's going to take 5 seasons to become just a rotation player? 15 months of real life time before you can use a player you invested a crap ton of money on as well as the cost of a trainer? The cost effectiveness of it is completely skewed, so let's just get rid of blank lineups and put a band aid on 5 inch knife wound! Make scouting, training and development a cost effective option with a return on investment to come much faster than it currently does. Or pretty soon the quality of player available to all is going to drop as more and more people realize the inefficiencies financially in actually training players. How fun will the game remain to those of us left when we reach the point of skilled players becoming scarce?

Former 3 year supporter who let his subscription lapse because the game is increasingly becoming less and less enjoyable.

Last edited by Hoosier at 10/15/2014 2:28:35 AM

Let's say you spend 20k per week for two seasons on the draft and from that you get lucky and pull 2 decent prospects. You have dropped over 400k in scouting costs alone. Now you spend 200k on a level 5 trainer with a16k salary, you keep him for 4 seasons at an average salary of 27k per week. That's 1.5 million in trainer salary. Now you fire him, drop another 200k on a 2nd level 5 trainer with a cheaper salary for 3 more seasons at an average of 23k per season, that's another 950k. You are at 3.2 million for an investment that won't help you till season 5 or 6. And that goes up if you don't want to take the time to scout and just purchase two good trainees for 400 or 500k a piece off the TL. Now you are over 4 million invested, for just two players. You can't win many games with just two players.

Or you can not have a trainer, tank for two seasons and have a ridiculous amount of money to put together a rebuilt roster of 30 year olds that you compete for a title and promotion right away. This is where all the fun is, winning and competing with the best teams. This plan helps you rebuild much much faster. You never need to train and waste 7 seasons doing so.

And this is why no one at the higher levels train, the system doesn't make it financially viable to do so! Taking away blank lineups does nothing to change this. Make rookies better with a higher skill level to start and that reach their potential in 3 or 4 seasons instead of 7 or 8.

Last edited by Hoosier at 10/15/2014 3:05:12 AM

Maybe this could be in another thread or made a new one?

Referring to this (259887.66)

Obviously, this thread has moved from a new feature feedback thread to a discussion on whether this should even be implemented, even though I've warned against this. I'm not happy about most of the posts here as they are neither on topic nor constructive. I have refrained from deleting them because I do want to hear what our users have to say, but my patience has reached a limit and I will not tolerate such posts any more. This is a direct warning.

Would have loved to talk about it too, but it would sidetrack the purpose of this thread.

I would have to agree that this discussion would be best served in another thread. Fortunately, there is another thread that has recently been started that is in the Suggestions forum - the thread itself is: (263578.1)

Let's please try to keep this thread right here on the topic of testing the changes or questions about the specifics (as BB-Marin's last post was unclear about whether three or four is the number).

@Everyone: Let me make this clear; 3 starters set -> no change. 2 starters set -> new code kicks in (clears the whole depth chart and sets it's own).

And yes, we will not implement this code in normal games this season, so the LCD will function as it did so far. We might implement it later on in the season or next season, depending on test results.

@Yuck: I have already explained why we're doing this in my previous posts, please read them. As for the other comments you made about economy and training, they are not what this thread is intended for. As much as I like hearing and value your opinions, I cannot start a discussion about them here since the thread is intended for one thing only: testing this new code. Everything else doesn't belong. Start a new thread and we'll discuss it there. Oh, and I see you sold your NT player. Congrats.

@Hoosier: The same thing applies, please stay on topic. Let's just continue this in (263578.1) or a new one, if you don't mind.

@Banan-mat66: I understand you made the switch but I cannot really implement a feature that far from ready. Also, is that switch really so bad? I mean, you would eventually have to make it (and you'll be ready if we implement it during the season). Also, what Perpete said.

@brambauti: True, my communication with the community is often lacking, I admit. I'm trying to improve though. In this case, a couple of weeks before I was still convinced it would work. These things are hard to predict.

Sounds good Marin.

If we are going to continue testing in PL this upcoming season, maybe you could post some lineup blueprints you would like some people to sign up to test? This way you could get more than just random data that differs from week to week.

Yes the NT guy finally sold! I may have to go buy that Italian team a supporter subscription!