BuzzerBeater Forums

While they are certainly crap as they are not salary-efficient, this important fact remains:

In a BB simulation containing high-salary but inefficient players like Silves, as well as the game's best salary-efficient players, the high-salary players will outperform the salary-efficient players.

BB is a simulation game, so one must adopt certain strategies to become the most successful player. However, BB is a basketball simulation, and basketball is very real. In basketball, the best players perform at the highest levels, to the point of statistical significance. BB has that part right. But in basketball, the players who deliver the best on-court performances are seen as the game's greatest commodities. In BB, they are seen as "crap."

A redefinition of "best" is impossible when basing the game on a sport that is real. Therefore, the notion that creating the best player possible is a poor strategy is completely counterintuitive.

Last edited by RiseandFire at 12/9/2010 5:17:34 AM

While they are certainly crap as they are not salary-efficient, this important fact remains:

In a BB simulation containing high-salary but inefficient players like Silves, as well as the game's best salary-efficient players, the high-salary players will outperform the salary-efficient players.

BB is a simulation game, so one must adopt certain strategies to become the most successful player. However, BB is a basketball simulation, and basketball is very real. In basketball, the best players perform at the highest levels, to the point of statistical significance. BB has that part right. But in basketball, the players who deliver the best on-court performances are seen as the game's greatest commodities. In BB, they are seen as "crap."

A redefinition of "best" is impossible when basing the game on a sport that is real. Therefore, the notion that creating the best player possible is a poor strategy is completely counterintuitive.

100% agreed.
Trying to be fair with the BBs, they actually say that we are supposed to build balanced players instead of monoskilled beasts. That's totally understandable.

What is nonsense is that a player A who has ID-IS-RB 15-15-15 and no secondaries be worth much more that a player B who is 20-20-20 and also no secondaries. OK, both of them are monoskilled and should be worth less than a multiskilled player, but when you compare only those 2 players, player A should be worth much more than player B. To consider Player B more valuable then Player A is counterintuive, illogical and bizarre.

Last edited by LA-Bernspin at 12/9/2010 7:16:30 AM

OK, then we completely agree, and for the record, I wasn't directing that post towards you at all, as you were paraphrasing the BBs in the first place. I totally understand the value of building balanced players - my trainees are all fairly experimental forwards with very balanced builds - but I definitely agree regarding the worth of monoskilled players.

Last edited by RiseandFire at 12/9/2010 7:31:02 AM

But someone is still weekly paying his salary? So basically nothing actually changes, only the top teams can not use them and not pay salary. That's the point. The fact you guys are missing is BB is still young. When the first bunch of trainees hit 35 that's when we can see what the player base lookes like. The economy will fine tune itself during seasons. If we would cut the salarys to half right away then we would have excess funds lying around again. So be patiant and drift clear of the unbalanced players. Training just one skill with a lvl7 trainer could get that salary pretty high and he outperforms a lot of players on the court with that ludacris IS or JS. It's all about the salary/skill tradeoff.
You can create an imbalance in any system if you stubbornly go for the unintended maximum.

So nobody can use them! And because they are on NTs, teams can't retire them, so they're affecting at least one poor team every week - and the effect is made worse by the payment of weekly salary upon purchase.

The fact that a player, at his best, is a burden points at a design flaw in BB. The game has gone on long enough to make this abundantly clear. Skills are supposed to be capped by potential - not the inability to pay a great player's salary.

Either set a cap on player salary, or lower the skill caps of great players. You're presenting the circular argument that we should work with the status quo because it is the status quo.

and the effect is made worse by the payment of weekly salary upon purchase.

If you pay the salary on purchase then you will not pay it the next economy update. The only thing that changes is: you can't rent them from monday to sunday.
The game is still young and the managers are just starting to train multiskilled players. That's why the salarys dropped at the start of this season, overall skills of BB players improved.

The fact that a player, at his best, is a burden points at a design flaw in BB.

No it's a minor glich in the system. How many players are there in BB? How many of those "superman" players are there? Are you saying no team can pay their salary? I can say there are plenty of teams that can hold those kind of players. People are just choosing an even team over owning that one player. What you guys are rooting for is wanting to have one's cake and eat it too. There are plenty of different strategys in BB. Some are better than others. I'm saying that one team can not buy 5 players that have been trained excessivly with a lvl7 trainer by a team that has no intrest in winning or anything else than training this player for 5-7 seasons. Letting divI teams buy 5 of those and keep them with no downside would ruin this game in a heartbeat.
It all comes down to are you willing to sacrifice your other spots on the floor for those 3 green skills at C.

As a response to your post in global.

I'm with you.

I've said my piece on the lead up to the final and Im a believer in watching managers battle it out within realistic parameters BUT the BB's have said on numerous occasions they see no reason to change and so you have to commend the managers or manager that best adapted to the situation in front of him.

Yes, having a spillover effect to the domestic cups is not great and hopefully this will be the catalyst for a rethink.

Summarizing the season gone by (amongst the elite) It was obvious to those that follow closely that eisen was the team to beat.(assuming rosters stayed static). closely followed by ESV Laim...It was Torooo who after confessing to being in his last season before retiring and swelling out to 1.3mil in wages pushed any wannabe contender to follow suit. From that moment any top team up against a fellow big fish had little choice but to try and pick up the biggest beast that was floating around waiting to be captured off the TL. Tukums & Larranaga timed their runs to perfection & truly gobbled up every bohemoth in site to do battle in an incredible final.

Hostivar cam close and failed, the Italian team (who surely had the best manager and team) likely had no cash due to their countries top league being 10x harder than the 2nd toughest top division in Buzzerbeater.

Some will remember this as a final they deem to be unfair or outside the rules of the game - others (like me) will remember it as an epic battle where 2 teams used everything in their artillery to lift the trophy at the expense of at least 1-2 seasons of domestic success.

'Blame the game not the playerz'

Last edited by Superfly Guy at 12/10/2010 10:49:16 AM

[ironic mode OFF] First of all, I want to make clear that I don't think the current B3 final was outside the rules. Both finalists had incredible strategies and totally deserved to be in the finals. Congratulations for both Tukums & Larranaga for what you have done.

But the spillover effect to the domestic cups in my POV is inevitable from now on. And this is not great indeed...

1) cancel Available cash after bids

I get your point, but even though this would be a good idea for the BBB and tournament finals, I think in general it is bad. I.e. for most occasions and teams it is a bad idea and therefore it should be avoided.

2) don't allow to play player without paying him a salary

I'm completely with you on this one.

3) make deadline for B3 registation

Of course, and the same principle should go for the tournament too. However, no registration procedure should be needed. The only thing would be that a player needs to be in the roster e.g. at least 5 weeks before the semi finals (this is a quite common rule in most real life tournaments).

4) involve adaptability to game

Also agreed, even though I think your levels are too tough (but that's just a detail). I also think that with only one new player in the starting lineup it should get quicker to adjust than with several new players in the lineup.

3) in itself should solve the BBB issue, but I'm still for 2) and 4) also as I think they are logical to introduce.

Now the "rent-a-player " tactic is going to be used also for winning the National cup matches (just look where Wisniewski is now, and he's again on sale...). It does not matter which, but a correction must be found....

Imo if they will leave the immortal partecipation in BBB to the winner we will never see again what happened in this BBB