BuzzerBeater Forums

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.

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.

f 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.

Imagine a manager who has two PG with 20 OD and 15 IS. Now comes the salary update and because the cost of OD and IS has increased just a little bit for PG/SG/SF, their salary increase of 50k (that doesn't seem irrealistic) => 100k for both. The manager cannot keep them and has now to sell them... As all the other managers in the same situation => low prices and a big financial loss. Sorry but that's unfair.

I would prefer an increasing of the outside shot %, or a decreasing of the cost of JR and JS for SF.

And while I agree that you ideally don't negatively impact anyone, any change you make is going to hurt somebody - make outside shooting higher percentage and you hurt those teams that have the high OD/high PA/ low JR players since their competition will benefit and they won't. If you reduce the cost of outside shooting further, teams with expensive outside shooters will suddenly have more money to augment their team while the LI clones wouldn't. There's simply no such thing as a change that will not affect anyone, period, end of story.

The simple truth is that what's best for the game is what's best for the game, and I certainly hope that the decision makers use that as their primary goal and then seek to minimize the disruption for anyone effected by the changes, rather than having a primary focus be on ensuring that those who have thrived continue to thrive.

Are outside teams really "outside"? I mean, what's your experience with playing normal focus? I guess that these outside teams can switch between outside and balanced offenses, between fast, normal and slow pace. Meaning they can shift between motion, princeton, push the ball, rng etc. While LI teams can only play fast, inside. Except maybe change pace to low post.

That makes GDP favorable to outside teams.

We dont know how big of an impact the GDP "feature" gives. I doubt we will See heavy usage of it in the Future.

I doubt we will See heavy usage of it in the Future.

would you care to explain yourself? why shouldn't an active manager who scouts his opponent use this tool? i counter an say: almost all managers in upper leagues will use it and it might just as well cancel itself out because many games will have both teams playing LI and predicting LI

Nobody uses GDP in scrimmages, where no risk is involved - just a guess.