BuzzerBeater Forums

Suggestions > DRAFT

DRAFT

Set priority
Show messages by
From: US_Star
This Post:
00
239376.16 in reply to 239376.15
Date: 3/26/2013 10:49:06 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
88
I am new to this game but I think that instead of changing the draft system, the game could allow each team to spend up to 10 of their left over scouting points to upgrade skills for any of their 3 draft picks.

A few rules and notes:
-I was thinking that each skill upgrade would cost 2 scouting points giving a manager the option of upgrading 5 skills per draft.
-Any given skill can only be upgraded twice per player. (Ex. if you wanted to upgrade IS for all three of your draft picks, you can upgrade IS 2 levels for 2 of your draft picks and 1 level for the other)
-Only current year draftees can get this.
-Can only be used in the first two weeks of the season.
-Only the manager who drafted that player can use this option.
-Potential can not be upgraded.
-You can use it all on one player. This way the draft won't be a big bust for those who finish last.

I don't really have a use for my scouting points as I invest 10k a week most of the season and wait till All star break to use Scouting Combine to get the age and height of all the draftees. I then change my investment if there are enough 18 year old players with the height range I'm looking for - 5''11 - 6''6 for guards or 6''10+ for big men. I then interview each 18 that falls into the group that I'm looking for; guards or Big men. This leaves me with points left over most of the time.

If this would be to big of a change I will settle for yodabig's idea as it would make the draft more interesting and seems like less work to implement.

This Post:
11
239376.17 in reply to 239376.11
Date: 3/30/2013 3:22:22 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
173173
The only reason I got addicted to this game is because I got a NT potential draftee in my first season of playing.

You can't say people in lower devisions don't know how to train- it's definetly not rocket science and is very easy to learn. We've all been in lower devisions (or at least most of us) and the reason a lot of people have continued playing this game is because we got a good draftee early on and we wanted to see him grow and improve so some day he'll be a great whole player.

I'm not even talking about balance and giving tools to young teams in order so they could get better and promote to higher devisions, if you'll hurt the draftees of young teams in lower devisions you are severely hurting their playing experience and dramaticly reducing their chances of continuing playing this game.

This Post:
00
239376.21 in reply to 239376.4
Date: 4/8/2013 3:30:54 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
1717
Agreed...And I also agree with the premise that the draft as it is now, is a waste of data space. I would be in favor of anything to make the draft more relevant.

From: Timbo4

This Post:
11
239376.22 in reply to 239376.12
Date: 4/14/2013 3:39:58 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
116116
In the event the amount of support for any particular ideas leads to changes in the game, I completely agree that the draft should provide a higher % of useable trainees.

I really like yodabig's suggestion. In fact, this might completely solve the problem (at least how I see it). We don't need to flood the game with MVPs/HOFs/ATGs. But we do need more all-stars and perennial all-stars in the draft, and less 1 ball potential players.

I could also really support thylacine's suggestion #3 (increasing the skill level, on average, of 19 year olds)

From: tykit

This Post:
00
239376.23 in reply to 239376.12
Date: 4/15/2013 6:11:12 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
106106
Hi,
I was wondering about another different way to decrease the amount of useless draft picks :
Are drafted only players who are at least scouted once.
Only managers who spend their scouting points get draft picks.

It wont change the challenge of finding a high potential out of the other draft applicants. Bots won't get draftees (and no more 18 yo 4k HoF in a bot's roster). Low potential players or low skilled ones won't be drafted that often neither.

Do you think this could be implemented ? It shouldn't need much changes in GE i guess ...
Cheers