BuzzerBeater Forums

The whole point of training secondary skills was to create salary efficient player... better player...better than others on same salary.

I agree with this mindset. I'm not a hardcore manager making the best choices, but it is very important to me to play in an environment where it is still possible to do so; I want there to be a gap between players able to research and recognize efficient strategies and willing to enact them, and players who don't bother to RTFM or show minimal dedication to improving their teams.

this is a change for the better: the more skills a player has, the more he should be paid

I just said the other day that I would probably never be seen complaining as long as whatever depth or complexity the game does possess is not gutted for casuals. This quote exemplifies the mindset I was referring to. There is no CBA, no rookie scale deals, no RFA, no locking guys into long-term contracts. Efficient training serves as a substitute for these things. I think the game should be accessible for people who think like this; easy to learn and find some success, but difficult to master until they are willing or able to take the next step. I would focus on eye-candy to appeal to this demographic; NES "Double-Dribble" style highlights during or after games, better uniform customization, a "Jordan vs. Bird" style dunk competition at the AS break, etc.

So these new changes would remove or diminish the rewards for quality training.

Based on Marin's clarifications, it sounds like quality training may be redefined, but not removed or diminished in the long run. I hope this is the correct interpretation.

What are your thoughts on current formula for rebounding for guards?

It ended up with guards being somewhat better off with as low rebounding as possible. For example Slovenian player Klavc has 19 Js, 19 Jr 20 Od. With atrocious rebounding, it made his salary quite good at only 176k. If his rebounding was, let's say 8, his salary would spike to even 274k.

There are some very interesting points being made here, things that we will definitely take into account when the time of change comes. Also, thanks for keeping things civil.

I think you've driven us where you wanted so now we know the best players to play and you need to rebalance the economy to compensate the benefits on the field of multiskills player.

Btw consider that we are on season 36 and the global economy seems not stable at all; if you wanna make the BB more funny you need to solve asap the details related to the economy (the debate of the micronations seems still "hot"), then give us more chances to play with different tactics. Probably is our fault but there are tactics that are not used, you needed to introduce the prediction cause the 80% of the teams played LI, maybe is time to describe better how princeton or box on defense are useful. Btw this is offtopic but believe me the economy should be a consequence of something not the beginning of something, you changed many times for many purposes and I'm pretty sure you'll have to change it again in the near future

With all the fuss and tweaking because of LI - and this one probably not being the final one - I assume, that removing the tactic from the game, would have been the much easier solution.