BuzzerBeater Forums

I believe I understand your point. But I don't agree.

If we know the "possible" range of levels in the draft, and the statistic probability of each level, then, we can decide whether to take this chance or not.

If all statistics are known, it 'd be too easy to put the numbers into ideal formula's which changes this basketbal sim into a mathematician contest. Maybe this is a bit extreme formulated, but that is what BB's want to avoid.
Succesfully dealing with uncertainties is a quality of a good manager. Offcourse there's a lot of counting involved, but it would be a pity if it was the only task left.
For the same reason the formulas of the game engine remain a mystery, which makes it harder/impossible to obtain exact predictions of future games.

Information of draft levels can be found after every draft on the TL, the reactions on the forums (in Belgium forums we have a lucky/unlucky thread for example) and in discussion threads when people are comparing their drafts.
The new manager has obtained for his first draft already some scouting reports, which allows him to pick not completely random. If the new player is smart, he'll decides whether or not to invest after his first draft when there is more info about it to obtain.

Yes that's right.

The Draft is fine. Managing the issue of a player not being good enough to play straight away is part of the challenge for top teams.

The best teams will just have to work harder to find and buy the best trainees. Or simpy wait until they are trained and for sale and buy them as 21 year olds.

It is nonsense to suggest the base level needs to rise every two seasons.

Don't get me wrong. I am not for exposing the formulas.

A game is not interesting if you know what is the best way to manage the team. This is one of the reasons I left Hattrick. Everybody knew that you have to invest maximum in the youth team, that midfield is most important etc.
This is why I am very happy that the BBs intend to do something against the current situation in which faster pace is always the better option.

So let' make it clear:
A. Draft does not have to upgrade the team significantly, but if you declare this
"find that diamond in the rough that will carry your team out of mediocrity" (from the rules), their should be dimonds to be found. at least few...

B. Formulas totally exposed is a bad thing. We all agree on that. If everybody knew everything the only way to become a better manager would be to spent more time on the game. Bad. Yet some clues and directions are given on most issues, not enough on the draft issue, to my opinion, (but my opinion might still change after my first draft...)

C. I am not for improving the level (and not against it, I don't know yet). I am for improving our ability to evaluate the pros and cons, risks and gains (assuming we are good managers).

Furthermore a good game is not necessarily a game that leaves everything as a total mystery, but a game that anables a manager to do well in more than one way. This way each manager can not only look for the better way to manage, but also express his/her style, or tendencies.

I would love to know that spending 40000 on scouting is always a good idea, and it will improve my team, but only if I can figure out how to exploit the gathered data, while not spending any money on scouting is also a good idea and it will improve my team, but only if I can figure out how to spend the saved money on alternatives.
This would be the ideal game for me. Every move can be useful if and only if you accompany it with the right apt decisions.

Yes that's right.

The Draft is fine. Managing the issue of a player not being good enough to play straight away is part of the challenge for top teams.

The best teams will just have to work harder to find and buy the best trainees. Or simpy wait until they are trained and for sale and buy them as 21 year olds.

It is nonsense to suggest the base level needs to rise every two seasons.

The problem that I see it is that when you buy a trainee you often do it from new teams rather than from the drafts. For me the only players with a future should be the ones in the draft. It might take some years for them to develop to a starter of that I have no problem. You might need to play them as backup and use them in scrimmages to give them enough minutes to finally become good.

But when you get better players from new teams than from drafts something is a bit strange for me.

I would like to have all top players from drafts. The rest of the players could be decent starters at lowest divisions but not even with perfect training much more than that. Then it would be similar to other manager game where as I understood things the original rosters are just there for the lower leagues to get started with.

A. Draft does not have to upgrade the team significantly, but if you declare this
"find that diamond in the rough that will carry your team out of mediocrity" (from the rules), their should be dimonds to be found. at least few...

Last season I drafted in the blind because of the bad result on the ones I had scouted. And even then I recieved 1 diamond that was better than any player on my team, 1 rough cut diamond (almost made starter but did not fit my training regime) and the last one we don't talk about ...but there have been sightings of hi, near the janitors office.. 2 very good ones out of 3. Not bad at all. So I use the scouting results just as much to eliminate as to choose players. ...and the boxscore;

B. Formulas totally exposed is a bad thing. We all agree on that. If everybody knew everything the only way to become a better manager would be to spent more time on the game. Bad. Yet some clues and directions are given on most issues, not enough on the draft issue, to my opinion, (but my opinion might still change after my first draft...)

I think the draft is good as it is. You have to analyze the boxscore to get an idea of how good each player is. Even my best players have a bad day. And I have one player that stat-wise would never get any playtime, but almost every time I let him on takes over the show and get "hot hand"(or what you call it).

So in this years draft I have one 4 star rating, B- rated player above two 5 star A's because of his enourmous rebound, assist and steals. And since there is no way anyone can see all draftees there is a small chance that a team that barely made his relegation match (especially if you were in the best conference and would have been in the playoffs with good margin if you were in the other conference) can recieve a decent player even if you are almost last to pick.

So in this years draft I have one 4 star rating, B- rated player above two 5 star A's .

? My immediate reaction to reading this is that you have got to be crazy. Talk about look a gift horse in the mouth.

I would be interested to learn if anybody else has followed this theory.

I personally would possibly demote 19yos below an 18yo with 1skill level less but then again i would still go with the player most likely to raise me the $$$.

One of the 5 stars is 19 and the other have only 3 star potential. So I still go for the cash, as I believe I will get a better price for the 4 star, because of his (assumed) good handling. If I don't remember wrong this will be more important in the upcoming game engine changes, especially if you are going to be able to continue with fast paced tactics.

Last edited by Svett Sleik (U21-Scout Norge) at 11/13/2008 12:43:19 PM

Context with my suggestion/mention,
I had thought in the last days.. to make the draft more realistic, there you know very well what you gonna get and what his level more or less ..
here it's bound with too much lucky even when your first pick is 1-3 .

I thought about addition of Rating grade to the statistics of the players performance.
That's just for give more indication to the coaches.. this is not the big change I talked about, with improving the rookies level but they can start from there and it's more suggestion which can help a little in the choices to get more information about the player level(Ltd. certainly) .

Opinions?
Charles, did you thought about that? to damage this not will .

to damage this not will.