BuzzerBeater Forums

I think he necro'd this thread to show that the staff in the past defended changes they made to push people to train well rounded players. Perhaps instead of complaining about negativity completely disregarding what's being written you could tell us if you think the BBs were right back then or if the BBs are right now. And note that we're talking about secondaries and not 'free skills' (which were only 2, IS and OD).

Should well balanced players cost more than they cost now, while there is no (known) plan to increase the cost of primaries?

Please elaborate.

Last edited by Lemonshine at 2/7/2017 9:19:50 AM

A game with mono-skilled players would suck.

Players with the best skills should be paid more.

Sounds logical to me.

not really: if mono-skilled cost less than well rounded, they will become more valuable and you will see more of them. It's fairly obvious, especially considering that they take MUCH less time to train.

So you can't have both 'no mono-skilled players' and 'very expensive well rounded players'. Choose one.

Last edited by Lemonshine at 2/7/2017 9:39:38 AM

This is a game, dude, stop trying to think it's something that it isn't.

You think very expensive well rounded players is better, that's fine. I will buy and build the cheaper monoskilled for myself and you can pay for the TSP what they are worth in salary and more. The salary influence training and roster building, so it all boils down to what kind of game you want.

Also who would be the monoskilled player between Ibaka and Jeff Green and who the mono skilled playerr? Do you want to make a clearer comparison?

Let's say Al Horford and Jordan so we compare Cs. In any case that really isn't the point. Apart from the fact that Jordan did get a max contract in BB a player like Jordan with extremely high FG% and elite inside skills would be a monster, because the game is a game and it's not going to keep Jordan's FGA low just because a player mostly scores on putbacks and dunks. You'd need a system more sophisticated than the current one.

These are just my opinions and I still am and will be training balanced players in future regardless of the changes.

If they cost the same you'd train and use:
1) a big man with 65 outside skills and 50 inside skills (15/15/13/7) http://i.imgur.com/1DH3qQV.png; or
2) a big man with 50 outside skills and 53 inside skills (17/16/13/7) http://i.imgur.com/cbpMirG.png

In the old salary formula the real difference in salary due to primaries was $46.8k so the difference due to secondaries was $5.3k (to estimate this consider the following skillsets):
1*) http://i.imgur.com/p8DM2nV.png
2*) http://i.imgur.com/JoC5CHJ.png

Therefore the difference between Player 1 and 2 is 17k and it could be a maximum of 23k (if all secondaries were basically free). If you double the cost of the extra secondaries, the difference will be down to 11k. This does not take into account that player 1 costs more to train than player 2.

At 11k difference would you do the extra training (by the look of it about 1 extra season) to build player 1 and would you take him over player 2? At 0k difference? What if he costs more than player 2? In the end it depends where you draw the line. Where do you want to draw the line?

Last edited by Lemonshine at 2/8/2017 10:20:38 AM