BuzzerBeater Forums

Ι care. You should too.

Besides that, the numbers of Bosnian(10+) draftees are tragic and compromise the very good job you've been doing with both your NTs.
HoF and ATG draft pool should be the same for every country, as a percentage to the entire draft pool.
Randomness could exist in the (common for all countries)percentage.

Last edited by maddoghellas at 6/4/2020 11:11:31 AM

I managed the Nippon U21 for a couple terms so lack of available talent is very familiar to me.

The BBs missed the boat on giving a more equal playing field to mid, small, and micro nations when Utopia used Utopia players and didn’t draft players in an inverse proportion to the user base by nationality.

I managed the Nippon U21 for a couple terms so lack of available talent is very familiar to me.

Nippon have 1 user, Bosnia 130, you can't compare that.
But as maddoghellas said, there should be a fix percent based on users how many HOF-s you will get at least.

It's sad when you have managers waiting for the draft to train, and you don't get normal players at all.

It looks like the rate of hall of famer for 18 year old decreased a bit for everyone compared to last season. From 4.2% it became 3.1%. But I think this season is more fair since the standard deviation among countries decreased from 10.9% to 4.2%. It is sad that your country has the worst rate among those with who have 18 year old hof, but is it only this season or do you have a consistently low rate? If it is consistent, maybe you have a valid complaint. I got nonbot player data from BBAPI a few days after both season's draft, so it may be skewed if managers fire low potential player and select high potential players, leaving more low potential players to bots.

Nippon had about a dozen managers before the merge so the comparison of a lack of talent is valid. Getting MVPs is absolutely normal. This game, like life, doesn’t hand things out based on fair proportions. Luck comes in handy. I drafted two 5/5 guys that both ended up MVP. Our draft had five such players, all MVP. Should I or my league-mates be mad about that too?

We got consistently low rate of HOF-s, about ATG I wont even speak
It's a bit problematic for our NT.

Try asking Marin about it. Maybe he can double check. I agree that distribution of potential should be the same across all countries even if it has high variance.

Draft S45- we had 2 players
Draft S46- we had 5 players
Draft S47- we had 5 players
Draft S48- we had 4 players and 1 ATG
Draft S49- we had 2 players

These are players with 18 years when got drafted. From this 19 players in 5 season we got 3 players taller than 203 cm. How we can make centers fou our NT, from what?

And this distribution by positions is even more ridiculous than distribution by potential.

I respect big communities and I do think that bigger communities should get bigger numbers of quality players, but if we can't be equal, it should be done proportionaly !

Have you checked that it isn't proportionally? Do you have evidence or strong beliefs that the average % of talent differs per country consistently? I'm the NT coach of the Netherlands, a little smaller country than yours (100 users), and we also have only 3 18yo HoF talents each draft, a couple of times just 2 like this draft, on occasion we get 5. It seems consistent with your experience, and I would guess it's the same for other countries. I would be stunned if large countries see a bigger % or less variance, do you really think the BB's coded a differerently for specific countries?

I think the question is, how fixed do you want it to be, and how much variance do you accept? Because just having a fixed % of HoF+ players each draft doesn't mean you can work with it ideally. Then you'll get only short players one draft, or just with low TSP. Or maybe bad skill distribution. Do you want or need the draft to be so consistent? Where do you draw the line? Is that even necessary? Or maybe do you just want the overall numbers to be higher for everyone, does that fix your problem? Or is it really that big a deal that one season you get 2 good talents and the other one 5?

Personally, I like being the underdog because I like a challenge. To see what you can make of the things that you have, instead of looking at what others have. It enables you to stand out as a great manager and tactician, to achieve the same with less. Be creative, try something different. There's not 1 path to success. You don't need high number of HoF talents to succeed, we started a Superstar potential player and we got to the European semis.

The draft is primarily a team "competition".
All this reasoning about national potentials etc. they should be considered second, as national teams are a plus, they are not the basis of the game.
But we often forget this because most of the truly active users who dialogue on the forum, are involved in some way in national staffs and therefore carry out many proposals for the national teams, but the game is based on the clubs in the first place.

Starting from this assumption, we should not ask ourselves how many players with high potential reach each country, but we should think about the catches of the clubs:
- allowing the draft investment to be valid for obtaining players to train / sell
- on the balance that each draft has on the global market.
(As much as I liked the introduction of the potential at the time, it created a huge gap in the market and often a lucky draft radically changes league balances, which does not give managers any credit)

We should focus on a meritocratic draft: the more you invest and/or the better you are at using scouting tools -> the greater the chances of finding some interesting talent.
Otherwise I don't see why, without any of these premises, there must be the same probability of drafting a phenomenon between those who invest and those who use the right tools and those who instead bang and hope for luck. Which happens on time now.

If it becomes balanced based on the skills of managers, a cohesive and united community can certainly benefit from it.
Exchange of information, suggestions, advice, involvement and request to participate in a draft with investments etc.
And therefore even a nation with a lower number of users can compete at great levels.
How is reality then.
There are small nations that have exceptional basketball potential compared to large nations.
Think of the UK compared to any Slavic or Baltic nation; at the population level they should produce many more champions, yet small nations that dedicate time and skills to teaching basketball have many more high-level players.
This is because whoever is more committed is rewarded.
In buzzerbeater it's not like that!
And this is the mistake.
Here that I invest 40k a week or 0 it makes no difference on the level of players I can bet on, and therefore in all the leagues I have been in or have looked the statistics the average of investment is always ridiculous. Only those who are sure to back down decide to invest in the draft, but the number of talents present will always remain the same! And luckily it could happen to take a great player without investing.

From what I hear here, we would simply like to raise the number of players potentially valid for the national teams to balance the challenges between national teams. But that's a plus.

Among other things, we would like a nation of 130 users to have the opportunity to fish an entire formation of 18-year-old phenomena every year (you call them "normal", but they are not normal, normal is "All star - 6").
And who cares if the nations with 1000+ users can draw 100, so much training draws it. The difference would only be in growing players with continuity and/or a mix of different skills.

(sorry for English, I don't speak it very well and I rely on automatic translators)