BuzzerBeater Forums

I don't think it was very difficult to forsee what we have seen with the market. I am probably talking out of my ass because I don't have access to really data bit:

1) BB user base declining which leads to less players on the market and a decrease in supply of players on the TL. However because of how BB is structured, demand in many aspects of the BB economy is exactly the same. In USA, we don't really have a DV anymore but we still have exactly the same numbers of DIII/DII/DI teams. Prices go up. Not surprising with demand constant and supply decreasing, prices have gone up.

2) You can make all the arguements you want about the percentage of players in free agency vs. rest of the TL, but limiting the supply of players has helped led to the drastic increase in prices.

3) Hoarding tax has created an incentive for people to spend their money or they lose it but with a decreasing pool of players it had lead to higher prices.

4) Increasing promotion bonus once again has increased the amount of money in market but with a decreasing player pool has helped increase player prices.

The only remedy is to increase the supply of players and/or find a way to take money out of econmy. Increasing the supply of players is easy. You get rid of FA limits which will help in the short term and you increase training speed which will help in the long term.

Prices are definitely out of control. I think as a start BBs should start releasing the above 60k salary players to Free agency again.

Probably one of the shorter posts in the thread but one of the most significant. Players of this quality are the ones that are probably most in demand when they appear on the TL. With them missing the demand moves both above and below, to the NT players, and to players in the 40k-60k range. Its attempting to buy those players which is becoming frustrating to many.

Maybe to help increase player supply in the long term, the BBs could make 2 position training as effective as single position training.

That is a good summary of some of the reasons prices have gone out of sight and the trend will continue. It shows the economy is beginning to work as the BB's intend, making training ever more profitable. Or should I say more and more and more and more ...

So who is going to train one position in this scenario?

Nobody. I meant they should replace one position training with two position or maybe allow you to train an inside and and an outside skill every week so you can train guards and bigmen at the same time.

So who is going to train one position in this scenario?

Nobody. I meant they should replace one position training with two position or maybe allow you to train an inside and and an outside skill every week so you can train guards and bigmen at the same time.

Why not disconnect training from positions completely and allow any player on the roster to be trained at the 1-position level in any skill a manager wants each week? Train your PG in rebounding, your SG in FT, your SF in stamina, your PF in handling and your C in passing if you want.

Besides, last time I checked basketball involved 5 players on the court for each team. At a minimum the fastest level of training should allow you to train 5 players per week not just 3. No wonder there is a shortage of properly trained players.

Why not disconnect training from positions completely ...

... or better yet, disconnect training from minutes. Far too logical, it makes too much sense for them to even consider it.

So who is going to train one position in this scenario?

Nobody. I meant they should replace one position training with two position or maybe allow you to train an inside and and an outside skill every week so you can train guards and bigmen at the same time.

Why not disconnect training from positions completely and allow any player on the roster to be trained at the 1-position level in any skill a manager wants each week? Train your PG in rebounding, your SG in FT, your SF in stamina, your PF in handling and your C in passing if you want.

Besides, last time I checked basketball involved 5 players on the court for each team. At a minimum the fastest level of training should allow you to train 5 players per week not just 3. No wonder there is a shortage of properly trained players.

If this were a different type of game, that would be a great idea. If there was some sort of counterbalance, it could be a great idea as well.

The problem is, right now, you can choose to train or not, and there are some negatives to training (at least, assuming you're going for "optimal" training). The higher up you go in the league structure, the more those negatives weigh - in IV, for example, playing 48 minutes a game with a fresh draftee isn't much of an impediment because the player that would otherwise be there might have a sub-10k salary anyway. And even then, some choose to not train, and instead just run older rosters and use FT/GS/Stamina training with a cheap trainer and come out slightly ahead on the weekly balance sheet.

So if, instead, anyone would be trainable at any position each week, that just means that training will no longer be a choice or a cost-benefit decision, just a default "everyone does it" option. It will significantly slow down the erosion that causes higher level teams to eventually have to come back to the pack, and basically the richest teams will buy the best trainees and be able to custom-build the best new players while still competing full-bore with the best current players.

Now, of course, that's not to say that this current system is ideal either. Whenever this discussion comes up, I maintain that a better option would be to have a system where there is a training / gameshape / free throws / stamina balance, where the team's training is allocated on a percentage basis according to what you want to prioritize. That would pair up with the "anyone, anywhere" training so that the limitation on training isn't minutes played in a position, but how much you're willing to sacrifice performance. That means there's a real choice, with a real give and take, and that isn't as much of a commitment as the current one.