BuzzerBeater Forums

BB Global (English) > Upcoming Staff System

Upcoming Staff System

Set priority
Show messages by
This Post:
00
49875.228 in reply to 49875.224
Date: 10/16/2008 5:25:05 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
2525
well, 5 with a cap of 7 would really put me at about 7.12 in the old system. Even a 6 would have been low balling me.

This would only be true if the improvement in effect between 5 and 7 is the same as the one between 3 to 5, which might or might not be the case.


I understand the system in a way that level 2 is not 200% of level 1. The surplus effect of each additional level, starting from one, decreases.

Example (example!):

1 = 100
2 = 150
3 = 175
4 = 187,5
5 = 193,75
6 = 196,875
etc...

In this example the effect is halved; in reality it will be more complex, but for the purpose of this demonstration it shall suit.

Therefore I see the difference between 5 and 7 not to be the same as between 3 and 5. It is indeed smaller.

@ Dr. Fader: no, I have no authority... ;-)

Last edited by Pallu at 10/16/2008 5:26:26 AM

From: Iordanou

This Post:
00
49875.229 in reply to 49875.228
Date: 10/16/2008 6:20:55 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
22
It seems that the new staff system is just not completed, or these investments will make only teams which have no idea about their team's cash flow

Last edited by Iordanou at 10/16/2008 6:21:19 AM

From: Dr. Fader

This Post:
00
49875.230 in reply to 49875.228
Date: 10/16/2008 8:20:26 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
22
Thanks for the response.

I think the system probably works along the lines you suggest.



This Post:
00
49875.231 in reply to 49875.228
Date: 10/16/2008 10:15:52 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
303303
well, 5 with a cap of 7 would really put me at about 7.12 in the old system. Even a 6 would have been low balling me.

This would only be true if the improvement in effect between 5 and 7 is the same as the one between 3 to 5, which might or might not be the case.


I understand the system in a way that level 2 is not 200% of level 1. The surplus effect of each additional level, starting from one, decreases.

Example (example!):

1 = 100
2 = 150
3 = 175
4 = 187,5
5 = 193,75
6 = 196,875
etc...

In this example the effect is halved; in reality it will be more complex, but for the purpose of this demonstration it shall suit.

Therefore I see the difference between 5 and 7 not to be the same as between 3 and 5. It is indeed smaller.

@ Dr. Fader: no, I have no authority... ;-)


Without saying that the numbers themselves are accurate (as I have no idea), the concept is pretty much that.

In the old system, there was a fairly minute difference between a 9 and a 10, and the difference became greater the further down the scale you went.

I'd be surprised if that was changed.

NO ONE at this table ordered a rum & Coke
Charles: Penn has some good people
A CT? Really?
Any two will do
Any three for me
Any four will score
Any five are live
This Post:
00
49875.232 in reply to 49875.231
Date: 10/16/2008 4:51:44 PM
TOP TEN THUNDERS
PLK
Overall Posts Rated:
188188
the things like effectiveness of trainning in all levels should be known ;/

maybe sume bb give as shot of info ??

This Post:
00
49875.233 in reply to 49875.232
Date: 10/16/2008 5:41:28 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
303303
the things like effectiveness of trainning in all levels should be known ;/


It's never been known and wont start now, at least not specifics.

NO ONE at this table ordered a rum & Coke
Charles: Penn has some good people
A CT? Really?
Any two will do
Any three for me
Any four will score
Any five are live
This Post:
00
49875.235 in reply to 49875.234
Date: 10/17/2008 2:39:25 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
22
Well tell that to these which aren't reading conference.

This Post:
00
49875.236 in reply to 49875.234
Date: 10/17/2008 4:40:26 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
1515
That may be the case, but do you recommend hiring level 7 staff? ;P



(sorry I couldn't help myself)

Last edited by TigerUnderGlass at 10/17/2008 4:41:10 PM

This Post:
00
49875.237 in reply to 49875.236
Date: 10/17/2008 11:03:17 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
11
no offense mate but i think its already been answered prior to even you questioning this


This Post:
00
49875.238 in reply to 49875.237
Date: 10/18/2008 2:08:13 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
1515
Are you sure? When did that happen? I don't believe you.


I wonder if you even bothered to check the post I was responding to before you posted this. I realize sarcasm is sometimes hard to pick up in print, but I felt fairly confident that I was obvious enough this time. Apparently I was not. Apologies for my gross error in judgement.

Advertisement