BuzzerBeater Forums

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)

I found 4 HOF 18yo players drafted by computerized player in division 3 in Bosna i Hercegovina.
The following is their link.
(48322324)
(48322283)
(48322697)
(48322627)

Thank you very much for this topic, which I followed with great interest and I took a look at the situation in my country (Switzerland):

70 managers, but about half of them are more or less active and the other half hardly at all. Of these 35, maybe 10 go to the polls. So the interest is very low and we can't keep up with other top nations at all (we were able to do that once in the early days of this game)

So, the drafts look like this (only the 18 year olds)

S45: 3 HOF and 2 MVP
S46: 2 HOF and 4 MVP
S47: 1 HOF and 1 MVP
S48: 4 HOF and 4 MVP
S48: 2 HOF and 5 MVP (Bosnia: 2 HOF and 9 MVP)

If I look at these figures, you could build a strong team from them. There are fluctuations (that's okay, but it probably hits the smaller nations harder than the bigger ones). Swiss players with ATG you only find 3.

I think it would be good if the smaller nations could get a guarantee that at least 1 ATG will be released per draft. Here you would have to define when you are a small nation (number of users? ranking list?).

That's all I would do, otherwise the smaller nations would have a disproportionate advantage if you give them 1% of all drafts at least HOF and 3% MVP, because usually the same clubs would come again and again to such players and with that you can make a lot of money, while in the larger nations the probability for a club to get such a player is much smaller.

Last edited by Mike at 6/5/2020 10:26:44 AM

What I want to say is that all we can do is drafting as many 18yo HOF players in division 3 as possible.
If my team is demoted to division 3 in Taiwan, I will purchase more scouting points and spend extra points scouting players every season.

I found 4 HOF 18yo players drafted by computerized player in division 3 in Bosna i Hercegovina.
The following is their link.
(48322324)
(48322283)
(48322697)
(48322627)

How we can invite these players in NT? We don't talk about computerized players.. Chine has 2000 computerized HOF's :)

You had the chance but you missed it. I am talking about the draft. All these players could have been drafted by human managers, but they decided not to.

First player had 6 human manager picks before bot took him.

Second player had 3 human manager picks before bot took him.

Third player had 2 human manager picks before bot took him.

Fourth player had 6 human manager picks before bot took him.

With better effort in the draft, you could've had all these players to help Bosnian NT in the future but these managers, who had the opportunity, didn't choose to try to get them in the draft. Maybe before changing the draft system it would be good to review the drafting in Bosnia and try to actually get these players before the bots can. Even if you don't get all of them, I'm sure there could be some improvements made to get at least one or two of the possible hall of famers to human managers.

5 players a season is just about right, the suggestion to mentor new players on how to draft is good as it was possible to have 6 this season.

I think it would be good if the smaller nations could get a guarantee that at least 1 ATG will be released per draft. Here you would have to define when you are a small nation (number of users? ranking list?).

Absurd.

Recap:
- Bot draft players removed from the count.
- 19-year-old drafted players removed from the count.
- Certainty to bring out an 18-year-old ATG per season (I dare not even imagine that it is asked for every single league draft) in small nations.

But do you realize what disparity of CLUB you would create?

In more than 40 draft seasons (often investing) I have seen 1 HOF (19 year old), and some MVPs.
Here we are talking about giving nations that have 20 active users (the smallest nations not agglomerated in "nations of ..") 1 certain ATG per draft, therefore potentially 1 ATG every 20 seasons to each user! We joke?
And how many HOFs? How many MVPs?
Then all 18 year olds, because otherwise they are not worth!

Repeat: But do you realize what a difference in CLUB you would create?

For that I say that if you have to think of a modification to the draft (and for me it should be done because it doesn't give any merit to those who invest or use the tools) you have to think in terms of CLUB; because the basic competition of the game belongs to clubs, not national teams.

With better effort in the draft, you could've had all these players to help Bosnian NT in the future but these managers, who had the opportunity, didn't choose to try to get them in the draft. Maybe before changing the draft system it would be good to review the drafting in Bosnia and try to actually get these players before the bots can. Even if you don't get all of them, I'm sure there could be some improvements made to get at least one or two of the possible hall of famers to human managers.

Excellent analysis, a community must try to do everything possible to grab all the best choices in the various drafts.

For some seasons I managed the U21 national team of Barbados and at the end of the season I begged investments on the draft to the various users with the risk of being reported for spam.

Of course, I had to do a 5/6 users, some of whom trained the players in the national team and with whom I had "relationships" for training. Nations of 100 users will surely have to have an apparatus behind it that can help in this context.

One proposal I made at the time was to make "free agent" players with high potential who ended up in bot teams. But even that unbalances the market and should be reasoned in depth.