BuzzerBeater Forums

In extreme cases even 4 million. Although the buyer in that case was something of a nutcase.

You think of Andrés Eduardo Lavallén ((7941355))? He can still give your friends much joy ... back home we watch him scoring both 4 and 8 points every now and again.

Oh yes, thank you some very much for that piece of information;-P

I argued that the problem with the draft, and the reason why many people find it unrealistic, is that the ability levels of the draftees are too low for teams in Div. III and up (in the U.S., and possibly for lower divisions in some countries) to draft a player who could start for them without creating a severe skill deficit at that position. Fast or slow training speed makes no difference to that. But if you believe training should be slower, shouldn't you also agree that the skill levels of draftees should be higher, or that their age at draft time should be younger?

Of course, if you agree with the BBs' view of NBA players' skills, maybe we don't need to change much. Here's LeBron, from the simulations they did earlier in the NBA season:

Jump Shot: prominent Jump Range: awful
Outside Def.: strong Handling: prominent
Driving: legendary Passing: prodigious
Inside Shot: prolific Inside Def.: proficient
Rebounding: respectable Shot Blocking: mediocre
Stamina: respectable Free Throw: prominent

Apparently you can train a LeBron in 4-5 seasons, which I guess is about right. I would say two things though: (1) these skill levels are mostly too low for him the way he's played the last two years (does anyone here really think LeBron's outside shot is "awful," or shall I put Game 2 against Orlando on the Tivo again?), and (2) they were appropriate four or five years ago, when he was just starting out. So why can't any of our draftees come with proficient skills here and there?



Last edited by crimedevil at 5/25/2009 9:04:59 AM

But if you believe training should be slower, shouldn't you also agree that the skill levels of draftees should be higher, or that their age at draft time should be younger?

i just say if the training as it nowadays, the player will be really fast much stronger then the draftees ;) If you have better draftees, the normal player would be pretty fast steronger then them - so the change wuld be useless.

But is the training more slow and realistic, draftees will have from the beginning an decent level because they can not develop really - and to be honest if you compare then to James, Rose and Pierce etc. this player are pretty strong from the beginning but they won't be much stronger in the perfect baller age.

I agree with this. I also think it would make the market system more interesting, in that most lower-division teams that got lucky and drafted a beast wouldn't be able to afford him. The problem then would be that the game would center less on training and more on purchasing the few draftees that are really worth something.

Honestly, though, I can't see how changing the system so that occasionally a few of a draftee's skills could be "proficient" to begin with would make much difference, especially since the BB world is overrun with badly trained players with a few high skills and mostly crap everywhere else. It might also slow some training down until the draftees' low skills could be trained up; large discrepancies in skill levels can have that effect on training.

I know quite a lot of people that started playing this game because it's dynamic... and not slow like hattrick...
and nothing would change with draftees with proficient stats... everyone would get some, and proficient vs proficient is the same as average vs average... just maybe more points in the game or rebounds...
more realistic... yeah lets make a season 84 games long and lasting 10 months with one stat popping every month or so... maybe more... that would be the most boring game ever (well, after Sims)....
:)

I ...nothing would change with draftees with proficient stats... everyone would get some, and proficient vs proficient is the same as average vs average... just maybe more points in the game or rebounds...

Not necessarily. That would depend on how many of such players there were.

more realistic... yeah lets make a season 84 games long and lasting 10 months with one stat popping every month or so... maybe more... that would be the most boring game ever (well, after Sims)....
:)

Your ideas, not mine.

so you will make lot more luck into the draft and less maager abilities important?

so you will make lot more luck into the draft and less maager abilities important?

Yeah, it would probably have that effect to a certain degree, although that could always be changed by simply making more or fewer such players. If everyone has one, we're back to our starting point but with more skilled draftees; if only a few people get one, the draft really is more like the lottery. Or we could leave the system as is; BB hasn't really been around long enough to establish what happens when today's star players get old and retire, and maybe at that point skills will be developed to where the optimal upper limit of a draftee's abilities is knowable.

I agree that not everyone should develop into a superstar. The inflated talent level of leagues would become absurd. I didn't realize that no ready-made stars came out in the drafts though. That's not right either.

Getting rid of retarded player potentials--I like games that are open-ended. If I want to train a player until all of his skills are wondrous, I should be able to, even if the guy is 28 or something.

Bad idea. Not everyone can have the potential to be great.

Then get rid of training altogether. If every 6'10" allstar can be trained to colossal rebounding skills, then all 6'10" players have the potential to be great rebounders, even if they suck at everything else. And if I can train a player into a one-trick-turd like that, why shouldn't I be able to train him into a Barkley-esque PF? Because 5 seasons ago someone decided to slam the door shut on training, just at the end of a rather long hallway.

Free Agents--freaking stop it. There is no reason to release an Italian with 13k salary from a bot team.

What's the problem? Don't like him, don't buy him.

Free Agents take money out of the game. Period. Why bother having the money in the game in the first place if you need to create a mechanism to take it out?

Monthly ticket prices--I like the fact that I can make my own mind up about what I'm charging at the gate, but I don't like the 1st of the month restriction. Seasons don't start and end (and promotions and relegations don't take place) on the first of the month, so why should changes in ticket prices?

Agreed. But it probably shouldn't be adjustable every game. Or there should be a penalty for owners who adjust their prices all the time and piss off their fans.

I liked the idea of being able to change prices at regular intervals during the season: at the start of the season, interconference play, last round of regular season, playoffs.