BuzzerBeater Forums

It´s the third time, that anounced changes will destroy my whole team concept. The claim to encourage long-term development in teams is only a empty phrase, if one changes the framework every few seasons without giving the players an adequate possibility to adapt to the new framework. It´s the same silly mistake done every time again - but hey, there is now a advertising-fond, so forget about the old players how are frustrated and quit the game because of this nearsighted style of managing the game. Unfortunately, u´ll lose payers and get some 4-week-trials.

What's your plan for the future? I'll do the opposite :p





Excluding jokes I agree with you even if probably the changes will be not so relevant.

Outside offense had a 10 season long period of fame. After that they changed the GE to what it is today and LI has been dominant ever since.

It's often a pleasure to read what you write but in this case you said something totally wrong ;)

These new rules are totaly unfair for BB players... Someone who has bought a player because of its secondary skills and its low salary loose everythings... same applies for the ones who have trained players out of their normal position to have good player with reasonable salary... changing rules of the game like that just doesnt make sence... it s like if in the NBA decided that the salary of players taking more than 50% of their shoot inside the paint should count twice in the salary cap...

NBA changes rules that teams have to adapt to. The addition of the 3 point line changed how teams had to draft, trade, and recruit via free agency. Freedom of movement rules at all levels have changed how teams teach and recruit/draft defenders and scorers.

Can you imagine being an NBA team that built itself in the 70s on slowing the game down via slow big men and guards that could handle the ball and pass but couldn't shoot? Then the 3-point line is implemented and they have to adapt, the same way we as managers of a game have to adapt.

You're welcome to correct anything I say that is wrong.

just that phrase, nothing more Outside has never been a dominant tactic here in BB. On the first seasons there was a bug on the value in the boxscore so we had the idea to have a strong team but it was just the worst bug ever made here. I think you can check by yourself I think no one won something using outside attack (or at least no one had a team "dominant" using outside). Just this ;)

These new rules are totaly unfair for BB players... Someone who has bought a player because of its secondary skills and its low salary loose everythings...

My team is made up of players with good secondaries and I don't think this change is unfair at all. It just doesn't seem right for better players to be paid less than worse players.

Anyway, I'm not even sure at what skill levels we'll even see a big difference so its a little early to proclaim the beginning of the end.

What happened to the "NT-coach firing mechanism"? It was announced very early last season - now no word about it.

Some thoughts after sitting on this for a while:

1) I think most will agree that people have been training IS on guards for salary efficiency reasons. This fact is something that has lead to the dominance of inside offense. I think ultimately the salary increase for IS on guards is a good idea. The bargain that people made with secondaries was always do I train this skill for salary efficiency but at the cost of slow training speeds? However, I think if people are paying more for IS on their guards or all big skills in general, it would be only be fair if training speed was increased for these skills that are now more expensive or even consider getting rid of the penalty of training skills not at their ideal position.

2) I think you need to be alot more careful when adjusting salary formula for bigs with secondaries. The brave owners that are training outside bigs may get hurt by potential changes. Many even have their bigs in the PG or SF formula. If the goal is to have more parity amongst tactics, then this should be something to take into consideration.

3) Please consider the long term implication on salary changes. As you are refining the changes, I am sure you are going to do some test runs to see what the changes will be. Savvy managers are probably still going to gravitate towards building the highest skill players they can for the lowest cost. Get a list of 120+ TSP players and see what builds have the lowest cost per skill point. Are these the builds that you want to see players training in future? Do they favor a certain tactic or do they help lead us towards tactical parity? I know that you will not release this information to the public, but I will imagine that pretty accurate salary information will make its way to managers as soon as Buzzer Manager updates which should be quickly after the salary update next season.

4) Part of me also wonders what would happen if instead of making secondaries more expensive, JR was made as cheap as IS on guards. Guards can add IS pretty effectively using 1v1 F and JS-F. Does this mean that we need to increase JR as a secondary to more training types? Is the issue with outside offenses that people are not training enough JR to be effective or is there something that still needs to change with the GE?