BuzzerBeater Forums

This is what you wrote about it:

For this it would be nice to introduce a signing fee- let's say if you buy a player you have to pay two weeks salaries immediately as the transaction closes, and you have to have that cash available when making the bid. This at least would minimize the incentive to go beyond the top absolute salaries we have today for the sake of an NT, even though it would depress the market for the existing top end players even further in the short term.
As for Knecht's proposal, I'm a bit concerned how this would distort the market. Clearly trainiers would scramble for the cap, and players just slightly below or slightly above the cap skill-wise would lose market value, whereas the hypothetical 1 million $ monster would be extremely attractive at a cost of $ 300k - a big discouragement to the multiskilling trend that the BBs hope to promote.

As I mentioned earlier, introducing a 2 week signing bonus per player will absolutely kill the market and this game. There is already so much moeny taken out of the game which is a big part of the reason the transfer market is so low at the moment. Implementing something like this will reduce prices so much and players like the 1 million dollar salary player would simply stay on the market because he will constantly be saved because he is on the national team.

I disagree with your last paragraph. I would prefer a player with slightly lower primaries and much better secondaries even if they were both at the same salary.

For example consider the following center:

Jump Shot: tremendous Jump Range: prolific
Outside Def.: tremendous Handling: sensational
Driving: sensational Passing: prolific
Inside Shot: stupendous Inside Def.: legendary
Rebounding: stupendous Shot Blocking: prominent

Total skill points: 136
or

Jump Shot: respectable Jump Range: mediocre
Outside Def.: mediocre Handling: respectable
Driving: respectable Passing: mediocre
Inside Shot: legendary (25) Inside Def.: legendary (30)
Rebounding: legendary (25) Shot Blocking: legendary

Total skill points: 136

Which player would you prefer?

This is what you wrote about it:

For this it would be nice to introduce a signing fee- let's say if you buy a player you have to pay two weeks salaries immediately as the transaction closes, and you have to have that cash available when making the bid. This at least would minimize the incentive to go beyond the top absolute salaries we have today for the sake of an NT, even though it would depress the market for the existing top end players even further in the short term.
As for Knecht's proposal, I'm a bit concerned how this would distort the market. Clearly trainiers would scramble for the cap, and players just slightly below or slightly above the cap skill-wise would lose market value, whereas the hypothetical 1 million $ monster would be extremely attractive at a cost of $ 300k - a big discouragement to the multiskilling trend that the BBs hope to promote.

As I mentioned earlier, introducing a 2 week signing bonus per player will absolutely kill the market and this game. There is already so much moeny taken out of the game which is a big part of the reason the transfer market is so low at the moment. Implementing something like this will reduce prices so much and players like the 1 million dollar salary player would simply stay on the market because he will constantly be saved because he is on the national team.

I disagree with your last paragraph. I would prefer a player with slightly lower primaries and much better secondaries even if they were both at the same salary.

For example consider the following center:

Jump Shot: tremendous Jump Range: prolific
Outside Def.: tremendous Handling: sensational
Driving: sensational Passing: prolific
Inside Shot: stupendous Inside Def.: legendary
Rebounding: stupendous Shot Blocking: prominent

Total skill points: 136
or

Jump Shot: respectable Jump Range: mediocre
Outside Def.: mediocre Handling: respectable
Driving: respectable Passing: mediocre
Inside Shot: legendary (25) Inside Def.: legendary (30)
Rebounding: legendary (25) Shot Blocking: legendary

Total skill points: 136

Which player would you prefer?

The first is a better Pf and Sf,the second is a far away better C.It's simple
I think that both capping the players at a salary max(300k for example9,and lower training rate are not solutions.
I think that other reduction of the salaries in the next seasons(that affect ALL the players,not only the best,as it would be unfair towards who have a 20k or a 200k player) and a medium increase of the arena attendence will adjust the situation going on with the time

Last edited by Steve Karenn at 10/11/2010 11:09:48 AM

Sorry I got the idea confused with the paying of a weeks salary every time someone buys a player.
Look at it another way, if there is no maximum salary then this game will become impossible for a new team to win the championship. In the current system, there is a way to get the "best" team. You can get a team in the current cap that is unbeatable given the same enthusiasm, neutral court and same gameshape. However, if you can train players as much as you want without raising the salary past 300k then this game becomes more about skill. It becomes more about training players in the best way so that you create the best team regardless of what their salary will be. It also increases the value of higher level trainers. It also means that a new team can win the NBBA or the spanish division 1 or italian division 1 because it isn't all about money now, it is about how well you can train a team.

Why do you think the second player is a better Center? Any proof?

If you play the first against the second player,many of the outside skill of the first player,which make him the better overall player,will not give him great advantage when they'll face under the baskets,while obviously the second is a much better inside player
Since I start playing the game,I always give a great importance to the secondaries also for the centers and I searched them for my player...but I don't think that in the inside battle a player will have greater advantage on the prolific Jr or the sensational Han than a superiority of the second player of many levels in the inside skills ;D

Last edited by Steve Karenn at 10/11/2010 11:23:12 AM

But look at it another way, wouldn't the first player simply be able to shoot 3 pointers whenever he likes and still make them with great consistency. And he would completely stop passes from the opposing center, and block a lot of jump shots made by the center. And the first player would also be able to pass the ball extremely well which is very important in offense situations.

But look at it another way, wouldn't the first player simply be able to shoot 3 pointers whenever he likes and still make them with great consistency. And he would completely stop passes from the opposing center, and block a lot of jump shots made by the center. And the first player would also be able to pass the ball extremely well which is very important in offense situations.

I have strong doubt about it,because BB it's not like the actual NBA where a center like Channing Frye or Andrea Bargnani or Memo Okur will make the large part of the shots from the arc.I don't think the first player would shoot a lot from the outside when he plays at centers,also if he has the ability to do it,simply because in BB it's not a thing that a center had to do.Also,the second player would have no need to shoot many jump shot,since he has advantage in the post and he can go with a hook or a dunk over the first player
It would be completely different when you put them at PF position,because the first player would completely destroy the second forcing the second player to shoot farther from the basket with shot with a much lower percentage,and with the first player that shoots more from the mid-range,when the second player can defende worse

As I said previously,the first is the better overall player,but the second is better playing the C position.It's like the prime Duncan vs the prime Shaq

Last edited by Steve Karenn at 10/11/2010 11:36:41 AM

I disagree. This is a management game which the developers have said time and again is all about making choices. The "best" player should be the player who can contribute the most to his team's success. If a 500k salary player can contribute 30 pts and 20 reb but forces you to field a team of guys who combined average 40 points and 20 rebounds then he might not be as good as a player who can contribute 20 and 10 but enables you to have four other guys who contribute 20 and 10. The choice is up to the manager. A level 5 trainer is NOT worth the money you pay for him relative to a level four trainer, yet many many managers will swear by a level 5 guy.

BB teams do have a salary cap- it is ( max revenue from the arena + merchandise + TV) - (staff salaries + scouting). You have wiggle room with cup money and transfers, but essentially the above is the formula for your team's salary cap.

Training-wise, you have the choice to make a guy too expensive or to limit his salary to something affordable. Perhaps if NT managers had a more sophisticated training philosophy, players would be cheaper but more effective. 51 total primary skill point centers are ~200k, 54 skill pointers are ~275k. If managers are creating players who are above anyone's salary cap, why would they continue to create them? This is a fantasy world that a little bit simulates real life. It shouldn't be hyper reality, as the developers have also said numerous times, although not as frequently recently. I mean there are 50 000 plus teams, including 16 D. 1 teams in Thailand. Currently Thailand has one professional basketball team in real life.

I don't think a skill drop should occur when a player is transferred, but I do think a game shape drop should, and I think it should be compounded . If guys are traveling all over the world, changing teams and time zones every week, they are going to get worn down and will not be on top of their game. This would compel NT managers to concentrate on truly effective players- salary efficient and good and who have a stable home where they have lots of bytes to eat.




Last edited by somdetsfinest at 10/11/2010 11:43:56 AM

I like the gameshape drop suggestion. I don't think it solves any problems though because the players that currently exist will still exist for 5 to 10 seasons.

Also, farm teams would still create these types of players.

I'm going to have to do some research and find out about this ;) I might try playing a great SG and the Center position on offence and see if he takes 3 pointers or not.

. Perhaps if NT managers had a more sophisticated training philosophy, players would be cheaper but more effective.

I really don't agree on this phrase.The secondaries are important,you had try to create player affordable for the managers because it means that they will have better shape and so on...
But there's a minimum in the primaries that a player had to reach to be effective in the international field
I was first scout and than big man responsible for the South African under 21 team in the past season,and in a so small country I had to fight against potential problems(there are few player with > all star potential in a country with 10-12 users every season),so I and my chief had to find a way to create the best player possible,and I am pretty sure that a large part of the Nt coaches and stuff all around the world make this work.But when we put on the field our triple 14 in inside skill with only decent secondaries,we had much better results than with his reserve with triple 10/11 and good secondaries
So,while the coach of an Nt had to understand the needs of the managers,they still have to ask to push over the limits the players on primaries,also if this caused a much greater expenses for the owners,because they need to have these players to obtain these results.You can close a gap of 3-4 levels in primaries with good secondaries,you can't colse a gap of 8-9-10 primaries against your adevrsaries


Last edited by Steve Karenn at 10/11/2010 12:01:12 PM