BuzzerBeater Forums

In the case of (7976961), for example, we're talking about a young but mainly monoskilled player. It is always going to be possible to create a player who is not very useful for their salary, and such a player will probably not do well on the transfer market. I don't see this as a problem - owners are given the freedom to choose the players they want to create, but in return they have to accept that some choices will be better than others. There are a handful of players in the database with 25+ jump shot, driving, and handling and no more than 5 in any other skill. These players will almost certainly never be able to justify their large salary, and I suspect that if listed for sale, the purchase price would be quite low. I don't think that's a failure of game design, though.

So what I am trying to say is that the value of a player should be given by the market depending on the player's skills, and not on the player's wages. The way the game is going is creating big distortions and will be very harmfull to the future of the game. Please don't be so blind for what is going on, I understand that mathematically and/or statistically the game could be fine, but, you know, this game is not just about statistics or math, you are just killing training and that's very serious.

I know you probably will play deaf and say that the game has reached equilibrium and so on, but I would appreciate if you listen a little bit someone who plays since season 2, who has been a supporter for a long time , who has his team ranked above #5 in Brazil and #200 in the world and has just being elected as coach of the Brazilian U-21 team.

Last edited by LA-Bernspin at 4/5/2010 9:23:58 AM

So what I am trying to say is that the value of a player should be given by the market depending on the player's skills, and not on the player's wages.

This is only partially true,because players with a too high salary for their efficiency will be always paid less on the market than players with a better salary/efficiency ratio,that's a market rule(and i still don't see how in the future will be good to have very high levels in shot blocking for example,even if it will be increased his value in the game engine)
What is wrong in the economic architecture of the game is that no one players that want to compete at the top levels can afford the highest wages players without destroying their teams or making the rest of their teams weak(for the top level)

So what I am trying to say is that the value of a player should be given by the market depending on the player's skills, and not on the player's wages.

This is exactly what's going to happen. I'm not sure if we were clear enough before, which might led to a misunderstanding, I don't think you fully understand what Charles was trying to say, so I'll make a second try.

We need to seperate two things here, which are the best players (1) and the highest wages (2).

The best players will not earn the most. You need to see the salary as a scale where players are being put in. A 500k player now, will probably not be a 500k player a few seasons from now (he will most certainly earn less, unless suddenly global income dramatically increases). As we expect some people will keep creating monoskilled monsters, the bunch of top end salary players (who again, are not the best players) will be monoskilled. This means that the best players, the better trained multiskilled ones, will earn less.

So in the end we'll see the best players being sold for the highest prices. These players will never earn 500k/wk since the monoskilled monsters will always fill the top end of the salary scale. This means the best players are affordable for top teams within their salary budget, thus their market price will go up. It's logical that the monoskilled top end salary monster will be sold for less since he's a worse player (and got a higher salary).

I also don't think you should be afraid we see the 'divine tricks' happen that much in BuzzerBeater as in Hattrick. The Hattrick engine supports monoskilled players (which is changing a bit lately, but still it's mostly singleskilled focussed). If you train a goalkeeper to 30+ goalkeeping you got the best you can get, if you train a playmaker to 30+ you got the best you can get. If you train a center to 30+ IS, ID and RB or a SG in 30 JS, HD and DR, you don't get the best you can get, you just get the highest possible salary. The BuzzerBeater engine supports multiskilled players since the start of the game way more than Hattrick ever did. The engine will try to exploit the weaknesses of the opponent, which means that in a matchup the play that can attack from the outside and inside will try take easy shots on the inside vs a monoskilled outside player and visa versa.

I don't see a 2,5m/wk monoskilled team winning the B3 in 10 seasons from now, I don't think such a team is able to beat a multiskilled one. I completely agree with your reasoning that we don't want to see a lot of this divine stuff happening here, and I really think it's not gonna happen.

Last edited by BB-Patrick at 4/5/2010 10:13:44 AM

Patrick,in certain roles to have the best players you had to have the highest salaries.
While I can agree about guards,for example,when we look at center poistion,I still don't see what skills a pure center should have over ID,IS,and Reb(i know that a center with the guards skills will perform better with the same salary,but is almost impossible sometimes to train that skills,without stopping the growth of the player in the primary skill because of the salary.
In BB the monoskilled players will never win something,but the triskills players yet,and they could be sustainable

I think that if engine doesnt support monoskiled players is quite enough and as raising of these players doesnt stop and will not stop, would be probably better to focus on that even if managers harms their results to let these players play, is their choice to do so.

Results would soon tell them that it is not right thing to do, but sometimes it is. Is good to have open tactical choices and sometimes even monster can fit perfectly. I think would be amazing to have here no stereotype about - this kind of player is the best and only possible solution, otherwise you will not be able to pay for him.

I just had another idea how this problem could be fixed. It is shared contract. If you have player, you can share him with another club, so his wage would be halved. Only thing to solve would be any kind of agreement between these clubs that every second week he can play there or there or every second match?

If you train a center to 30+ IS, ID and RB or a SG in 30 JS, HD and DR, you don't get the best you can get, you just get the highest possible salary. .

Are you serious?

If you train a center to 20 ID/IS/RB and have atrocious PA then you need secondaries beyond the levels that are possible to train to add to your 14 ID/IS/RB guy to get anywhere near him... so training a 30+ guy would far surpass anything we can currently create/buy now in terms of performance.

As for guards - the same would be true if you said level 30 JS/OD and HD.. no way you will convince anyone that having secondaries at level 9/10 will suddenly mean that you can stop a mono-skilled guard who can at least catch the ball going off on a scoring frenzy.

I appreciate your efforts to forecast how you envisage the trends but these are not dictated by which skill-set is best... it is being enforced upon us by a) constantly saying that multi-skilled guys are better than mono-skilled guys (which we are all coming around to the idea of) but only because the salary for us to test this theory is preventing us from doing so.

Isn't it more so that our training choices are now even more prohibited because thats the way you wish us to play the game?

Last edited by Superfly Guy at 4/5/2010 10:33:09 AM

Im getting confused with the multiskilled roles... What exactly you consider as a multiskilled players?

-The only multiskilleds players that exists on BB are just some small forwards players with great outside skills and inside ones too, like Tobias, Papalia, Berdomas etc, but apart from that ones i dont consider for example Raúl Iruleta (4545937) a multiskilled one even if he has great secundary skills and he is one of the best PG's on BB.

For example, i dont consider Cisquell a monoskilled player, he is able to shoot from the outside, but his salary is just 500k and when he is on good shape his performance is just great, just take a look on past final on Euro.


The only players that take an advantage on salarys are the SF's, anyway still an imbalance between salarys of outside players and inside ones.

Last edited by Marot at 4/5/2010 10:42:24 AM

I think what you are saying, and I believe is correct, is that mono-skilled players are still rewarded by the game engine compared to multi-skilled players and that the only reason not to train mono-skilled players is that the salary will be too high to sustain. In my opinion the game engine should reward multi-skilled players compared to mono-skilled players from the gameplay point of view and not by enforcing multi-skilled by simply changing the economic landscape. Even saying that I am not sure, as someone else mentioned, a team of all small forwards bodes well for buzzerbeater and it really does not reflect the reality of the NBA where teams have mono-skilled players at the extreme guard and center positions.

Its nearly impossible to train the center you posted............

Ive seen some PF's close to that in JS-DR-handling, but with weaker OD/passing and inside skills with ages around 25-26.

The game doesnt allow to train a player like the one you posted.