BuzzerBeater Forums

People still don't get that the money in the bank is peanuts compared to the money they have in the form of players...

In any case, you guys should just accept that the point of my comment is that training is inadequate and prices are only relevant to training, if you want to substitute daytrading with training as THE way to make money in the game (aside from tanking).

Last edited by Lemonshine at 7/5/2017 5:50:45 PM

It would be nice if second chance points and points in the paint were available stats, as an aside, to help quantify that.

That would require a lot of fiddling when building a Moutlinho-like tool: the play-by-play in whichever form (including the source code for the web page) does not allow you to differentiate between putbacks and inside shots to the best of my knowledge.

Last edited by Lemonshine at 7/5/2017 5:42:33 PM

Do we really want any random manager coming into this game to emediatly be able to catch up to any team in the game that actually has spent rl years of time to achieve that position?

That's better than never being able to catch up because the economy is broken and there are no means to make enough money and catch up.

So if your question is in relation to the current state of the game the answer should be unequivocally YES and I would like the BBs and you, the staff, to understand this.

The same point could be made in general, as strategy and management games should reward ability or commitment not length of subscription. Older managers have more experience, have a built up arena, have player capital, have a lot going for them...that you guys want it to be hard or impossible for newer users to catch up is beyond illogical. The game is already hard as it is for new users, I think a lot of them quit not because they don't win games, but because they understand how long it will actually take them to be able to progress in the game and since they haven't invested much time yet, they have very little reason to stick around if they think the time is too long.

Last edited by Lemonshine at 7/6/2017 10:26:27 AM

If the prices drop now the ones who have sold in these high price times and amassed lots of cash would be in a very good position. And we dont want to support those nasty tankers do we ;)

I'll tell you another thing. The only way to deplete capital locked into players (the $$$ value of the rosters) is to devalue skills points. To devalue skill points you need to increase the average skill count in the game, this is because there is a cap to training so players cannot improve indefinitely. Barring another user exodus (combined with FA) the only way to do that is boosting training. A general reduction of skill count across the game (which has happened) DOES NOT affect the capital locked into players unless it is so severe that top and bottom are very close, because whoever has the best players (even though today best players are much worse than yesterday's) will always have more capital. As an added consequence, if top and bottom were close (eg D1 90 TSP average, D2 75 TSP and D3 60 TSP - untrained...) training would be almost meaningless.

Right now and until a) training is improved; b) they quit the game, you will not be able to affect people with the most money (players+bank account+seats built) if they behave rationally and swap pieces over time.

To fully comprehend how bad the current economy is skewed in favour of teams with very expensive rosters you need to see what happened to the transfer fees of high salary players. Now high salary players are at a premium, they go for high money. In the past high salary player went for low money on the TL because people correctly factored in the salary in the overall cost: then you had a situation where the value of the roster (in terms of potential sale return) was fairly low, therefore teams competing at the top were not carrying 30m, 40m in players, but a fraction and it was easier for up and coming teams to acquire similar players too. The reason why high salary players go for a lot of money now is because there are fewer of them and they are likely to be difference makers (and also because increasing the floor pushes people to invest in players even if they don't want to). In the past you often saw 250k salary players go for less than 20k, now they go for millions. The difference was: it was cheap to build a top team, but then it would cost you a lot in salary (ie. you'd run a weekly loss). The other managers however would have more value locked in players AND make a weekly profit, so at the end of the season they would have a lot more money (both bank account and player worth) than the guy spending on salary. It was a system that worked efficiently to replace people at the top (unless they also resorted to other tactics like daytrading).

People said back then that there was no incentive to train. It was true, but there is no incentive today either, because no incentive has been introduced. If you want to incentivise training you give sweeteners (some kind of advantage one way or another) to those who train or you make it cheaper or faster to train, you DO NOT manipulate other aspects of the game (namely player prices, ban daytrading, create ad-hoc taxes) hoping that it will affect training. WHERE is the evidence that higher prices have increased training? All I see is falling player skill across league levels. I was among those who warned Marin not to remove FA when it was clear Utopia was affecting prices, he ignored that for a couple of real life years. Now he's listing 40yo FAs with 60 TSP...


Last edited by Lemonshine at 7/6/2017 10:18:19 AM

It would be nice if second chance points and points in the paint were available stats, as an aside, to help quantify that.

That would require a lot of fiddling when building a Moutlinho-like tool: the play-by-play in whichever form (including the source code for the web page) does not allow you to differentiate between putbacks and inside shots to the best of my knowledge.

No, I don't think it does either. I think second chance shots is doable because after a missed shot, if possession doesn't change, the next shot is a second chance shot. (I don't know the actual NBA or international stat definition so if they only count it based on offensive boards and not fumbled defensive rebounds/etc. that would need to be modified). Points in the paint is probably not at all doable since I don't know how you'd identify that, but it would still be nice to have for funsies.

Last edited by GM-hrudey at 7/6/2017 9:41:02 AM

Points in the paint is probably not at all doable since I don't know how you'd identify that, but it would still be nice to have for funsies.

Not possible there is no indication anywhere in the play-by-play source about where the shots is taken from or the distance. You only have the type of shot: 3 pointer, fade away, driving layup, jump shot, dunk, alley hoop etc.

I think second chance shots is doable because after a missed shot, if possession doesn't change, the next shot is a second chance shot.

it requires a lot of fiddling because:
1) you need an offensive rebound
2) the same player who got the rebound needs to shoot the ball in the next few seconds
It's not as simple as: "possession doesn't change", because the game has those genius rebounds out of bounds and also contested balls which don't change who has possession of the ball. Also you need to rule out all the situations when a player passes the ball after the offensive rebound, which is the tricky part (because the same guy can take the shot after several passes have been made and 20 seconds have gone by).

Last edited by Lemonshine at 7/6/2017 10:20:27 AM

Do we really need this kind of talk on a public forum?

Points in the paint is probably not at all doable since I don't know how you'd identify that, but it would still be nice to have for funsies.

Not possible there is no indication anywhere in the play-by-play source about where the shots is taken from or the distance. You only have the type of shot: 3 pointer, fade away, driving layup, jump shot, dunk, alley hoop etc.

I think second chance shots is doable because after a missed shot, if possession doesn't change, the next shot is a second chance shot.

it requires a lot of fiddling because:
1) you need an offensive rebound
2) the same player who got the rebound needs to shoot the ball in the next few seconds
It's not as simple as: "possession doesn't change", because the game has those genius rebounds out of bounds and also contested balls which don't change who has possession of the ball. Also you need to rule out all the situations when a player passes the ball after the offensive rebound, which is the tricky part (because the same guy can take the shot after several passes have been made and 20 seconds have gone by).

On these, I wasn't suggesting user-created tools, more of a wish list of things I wish were available in the actual box score/live viewer. I don't even know if points in the paint would be possible with the current engine, because I'm not sure how accurate the position of shots being taken actually is (if the position is calculated and displayed correctly in the viewer, it would be possible but I expect that's not very precise).

Second chance points is a team stat. Basically, if the team misses a shot (and isn't fouled), but retains possession, any points they then score before losing possession are second-chance points. It'd be something that can be useful at a glance to see how much rebounding is helping or hurting a team in a given match - if you hold a team to 25% shooting but they rebound half of their misses then they'll have roughly 50% effective shooting per possession (at least, on possessions they don't have a turnover).