BuzzerBeater Forums

How has it morphed?

Whoa! You're kidding, right? How about the most recent change, that at the start of Season 31 a major change took place in the FA system? How about that the original description of the change was so vague that most people thought there would finally be some relief, a better supply of free agents and a corresponding improvement in the economy as relates to FA's, the transfer market and the entire basketball mechanism? How about that exactly the opposite happened, and we found out the hard way why the original description was so obscure and misleading? How about that when Marin was asked about it, he said it was deliberately done specifically to reward training by making training more profitable?

When the game is deliberately changed by the powers that be to reward training at the cost of damaging the basketball mechanisms and wildly inflating the player economy, I'd call that "morphed," and I don't actually think anyone has forgotten that yet, present company included.

So if the free agency changes were immediately (hell, even retroactively) removed, would this change it from a "strange training exercise" to a "basketball management sim"? I call bull.

Before the changes, you could train players, or not. You could buy players, or not. There were some players who went into free agency, and some who didn't. You could invest in the draft or not. You could use GDP or not. You could use the same tactic over and over or not. You could build your arena or not.

Now, the only change is different players reach free agency. Period. The game has not morphed into something entirely different. And it's the smallest component of all of them - free agency is dwarfed by regular transfers, and training and the draft are available to everyone as well.

Perhaps you want a New York Knicks themed basketball sim, where every team is built exclusively through free agency, and if I come across one, I'll let you know.

Now, the only change is different players reach free agency. Period.

This is a huge change as is fudged up the whole game. There will be close to zero vertical mobility between the leagues as now it is almost impossible to buy the players needed to remain in a higher division and if you want to train those guys it takes ages. If I would like to add the players that give me a chance to remain in DIVI, I would need to spend between 10-15 million for a relegation bound roster. The way it is now, the established teams are now untouchable.

Maybe it will fix itself in the next 2-3 years as managers will adapt and more long-tenured users will quit, but this timespan is a bit long for a game that saw a sharp decline in users in the recent past.

Now, the only change is different players reach free agency. Period.

This is a huge change as is fudged up the whole game. There will be close to zero vertical mobility between the leagues as now it is almost impossible to buy the players needed to remain in a higher division and if you want to train those guys it takes ages. If I would like to add the players that give me a chance to remain in DIVI, I would need to spend between 10-15 million for a relegation bound roster. The way it is now, the established teams are now untouchable.

Maybe it will fix itself in the next 2-3 years as managers will adapt and more long-tenured users will quit, but this timespan is a bit long for a game that saw a sharp decline in users in the recent past.

Free agency wasn't creating those players out of thin air; those players needed to exist and then a team having those players had to become a bot (via quitting or being banned, since all players are still listed at $0 in the case of bankruptcy) or else the player needed to be fired.

I'm more than willing to say that the glacial pace of training is a cause of prices being as they are, and that's definitely something I could see value in changing. But I don't think that there would be a significant shift even if free agency changed to put every single player on teams being botified on the market. Maybe someone has numbers on the number of teams that go bot and the approximate value of the players not put into FA from week to week, which would be interesting to know. But if 20000+ users can't supply enough players right now to satiate market demand, it's awful optimistic to expect that the scraps of the departed teams will make a shift.

So if the free agency changes were immediately (hell, even retroactively) removed, would this change it from a "strange training exercise" to a "basketball management sim"? I call bull.

Of course that's not the ONLY thing needed. You know that and I know that -- we all know that, so I call bull. It's just the most recent of a long line of damaging changes.

Hrudey, you don't have to believe me, but you do have to believe the declining numbers of players. There's no hiding your head in the sand over that.

Could it be that these kind of games are not that popular anymore as they were before?

Of course ... but that is no reason not to fix glaring problems.

So if the free agency changes were immediately (hell, even retroactively) removed, would this change it from a "strange training exercise" to a "basketball management sim"? I call bull.

Of course that's not the ONLY thing needed. You know that and I know that -- we all know that, so I call bull. It's just the most recent of a long line of damaging changes.

Then, when, precisely did it stop being a "basketball management sim" and become a "strange training exercise?" What changed?

Hrudey, you don't have to believe me, but you do have to believe the declining numbers of players. There's no hiding your head in the sand over that.

Users dropped when we had rampant deflation. Users dropped when we have rampant inflation. Both times, people dissatisfied with the situation blamed the declining userbase on that. Just because two things happen at the same time doesn't mean that one causes the other.

Phyr, this is a very well thought out and well written proposal. (I'm responding to the original post)
With regards to not needing 48+ minutes, it seems that many folks strive so hard to get their 3 players at 48+ on single position training, or their six players in double position training, and anything less is deemed unacceptable. What it has always seemed to me is that getting all your trained players the max training in a week should be somewhat of a challenge and a rarity. Not just a press of a button. Over the seasons, this has turned out to be a fun challenge for me, and several of the other managers I know in real life. Taking my Utopia team as an example, I know that I won't get the best out of my guys if I try to play them 48+ each game, and it also won't be best for my team from a winning perspective. My answer to this is to train 5 guys in 2 position training. That way there is more flexibility, and my best players (the players I'm training have grown to be my best) can play bigger roles in league games.

I would be okay with the drop off in training efficiency from 48+ minutes being linear instead of on a curve. Actually, I would welcome that change.

Regarding #2, I've actually just thought of out of position training as one of those things that makes you really question whether it's worth it to try and train up your big man's passing, for instance. It's been the question of: do I play him as a guard in a league game (and risk TO's) and have him defend the post? Or do I just play him once as a reserve, and then get him his 48+ in a scrimmage? Not easy, but again, a fun challenge over the past 15 or so seasons.
I actually thought the change so we can train anyone anywhere, but with a penalty, was generous.

However, I would not be opposed to seeing training penalties lifted for all positions, but I would prefer that it stays the way it is now in terms of choosing only one skill to train per week, and players needing to be in the same position to receive that training (or 2 positions for 2 player training, of course). I think that would be another very generous shift towards making training easier.

All in all, though, I've enjoyed the current training system. I've always been training at least one player on my team every season, and my team has done moderately well over the years, so the current system can definitely be incorporated with team success as well.


Last edited by Iguanadon Joe at 10/15/2015 1:33:47 PM