BuzzerBeater Forums

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.

Just a question: Have they actually said what skills will be included and for what positions. And also how much they will contribute to the players salary?
I havent seen any of that yet and if anyone else has please link me to it. But what i'm saying is, do we really know that multi skilled players will be a LOT more expensive? Do we know all skills will be affected?
Well the answer is no to all those kind of questions. And Marin also said that the initial change will be fairly small. So i dont think we need to worry about teams going bankrupt over a single economy update.
Also that IS is free in the PG, SG and SF formula has contributed a lot to the kind of players that we see in top teams and one of the factors that have made LI as powerful as it actually is in this game.
To tackle that should be something every manager in the game should be wanting to see in order to actually get a more tactical game. Not just a game of who can splash the most money in their über LI-guards.

1$ could be a lot or nothing, just saying that they've to stop one day to change the economy and focus the efforts on other aspects of this game. So again, nothing against the news but once again they're using the economy to adjust something "wrong" (?). On season 36 I would expect to have a game well balanced, it seems not yet and ok to change it once again to make it more realistic/fair/funny what is bad is to use the economy to change your way to train and to play

I'm signing the petition that says that the salary changes are a good idea. Is that set up yet? Anyway, correct me I'm wrong here, but I don't think skill increases result in a linear increase in salary. It seems like each skill increase brings with it an an increasing rate of salary increase. Going from a skill level of 1 to 2 seems to have a relatively minimal impact salary compared with going from a skill level of, say, 14 to 15. Therefore, increasing a guard's salary for higher big man skills shouldn't be such a big deal and, given the how much more of a complete player this will be with a minor change to salary I think the better rounded players will still be good value players. Of course, I reserve judgment until I see that actual impact on the salaries compared with their impact on inside-oriented offenses.

I assume that big men will also see an increase salary if they have good guard skills?

Big men should be split between Cs and PFs. PFs may need reworking, Cs not so much. The effect of JS on Cs salary formulas is an aberration especially considering that you can't avoid training JS as a secondary skill. So you have:
- guards train IS as secondary training (from 1v1 forwards) = free
- Centres train JS as secondary training (from IS training) = very significant salary impact

I hope training patterns and the way training is currently structured are taken into consideration when addressing this issue.

You're right: the salary explodes after the player turns into a PF. Disregard my point then.