BuzzerBeater Forums

BB Global (English) > Season 25

Season 25

Set priority
Show messages by
This Post:
00
248324.308 in reply to 248324.307
Date: 11/5/2013 5:48:27 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
329329
It can't be too easy. there are several experienced Brazilian managers who have been playing this game for a long time, and Torooo out played them all.

This Post:
00
248324.310 in reply to 248324.309
Date: 12/11/2013 7:31:39 AM
Kitakyushu
ASL
Overall Posts Rated:
12341234
Great post.....

This Post:
00
248324.311 in reply to 248324.309
Date: 12/11/2013 10:44:10 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
32293229
I think one other takeaway from it is that the changes definitely made SGs cheaper, but a player who already fell under the PG formula probably didn't receive nearly as much a salary break since their JR wasn't factoring nearly so much into their salary. And of course players who were in the SG formula but not by a wide margin now fall under the PG formula as well.

But I'm also in the camp that OD should definitely cost more (maybe same as SG formula for all positions?) and IS on non-big positions as well.

This Post:
00
248324.315 in reply to 248324.312
Date: 12/12/2013 10:02:17 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
32293229
GM-Manon had a proposal recently on what should be done (251049.1).
So i would love to see something in the lines of increased cost of OD and added cost of IS to PG/SG/SF. Then we might not see these guards with insane OD, DR and IS and a really cheap salary in comparison to a guard with high JS and JR.

This, coupled with increased cost for IS also on bigs, seems worth some consideration.

I don't agree, because increasing the cost of OD and IS will penalize the best managers, those ones who have understood how to improve the performances of their team for a minimal cost. From one day to another all their economy would be destroyed and why? Because they were smarter? Resetting all the teams would be stupid but less unfair that increasing the cost of OD and IS...

The BB's try to make the game more balanced step by step, with small changes here and there and I think it's the best solution. Maybe it was not enough, maybe it was but I don't understand how it's possible to state after only one or two seasons if it's enough or not.


So what you're saying is that if the game is broken, the people who figure out how to exploit the broken nature of the game would be unjustly penalized if they were to fix the game. Got it.

This Post:
00
248324.317 in reply to 248324.316
Date: 12/12/2013 11:45:46 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
32293229
Broken? So when Joey Ka say:

I don't believe a truly balanced tactical landscape is ever possible

That means for you that the game will be always broken? No the game is not broken, there will ever be a better way to exploit it and so I don't understand why the managers who has exploited the game in the best way would be penalized and become, in one change, the big losers. And that would be the case if you increase the cost of OD and IS.

I don't say that the last changes are enough, in fact I don't know. But I prefer seeing small corrections here in there, which give times to the managers to make some adaptations.


If the changes are best for the game, the changes need to be made. The best managers will adapt as always and find ways to thrive in the new environment, and those who have followed in their footsteps to achieve success will struggle until they find the new footsteps.

Your design philosophy that anything that's overpowered cannot be fixed because it inconveniences those who took advantage of that power is a noble intention, I'm sure, but it'd be a horrible decisionmaking process from a game design point of view.

Advertisement