BuzzerBeater Forums

this thread was of course provocative.

I don't think there is need to increase the draftees quality... I don't have enough information to claim that, and anyway that wasn't the point of my post. I would rather differentiate the quality of the draftees according to age (a 5 star 19yo should be better than a 5 star 18yo), but that is a different story.

The first point is that there is far too much random in the draft system the way it is now designed and investing more money gives only a slight chance to observe (and pick) better players.
There are users who invested $0 along the whole season and see two 5 star players (0 is 0, there should be no observations whatsoever!!!) and others (lucky ones like me) who can only see one 5 star out of 22 players observed.

Secondly the current draft is boring and adds very little to the game. I feel that the draft should have a main role (second only to the matches and the roster management) and there could be much more interaction along the season.

There have been plenty of suggestions to improve the current system... just to mention a couple of them:
- Select the kind of players you want to observe a second time, according to the star rating or the suggested position. If your requirements are too strict, you might lose scouts' reports.
- Make the chance to observe a player for the second time proportional to the star rating (i.e 40% for a 5 star, 30% for a 4 star, 20% for a 3 star and so forth).

Last edited by Newton07 at 8/24/2009 5:39:51 PM

0 is 0, there should be no observations whatsoever!!!

I don't need to pay $10K to turn on the TV and see some guy play, or read about him in a newspaper or magazine.

I don't need to pay $10K to turn on the TV and see some guy play, or read about him in a newspaper or magazine.

oh, right... so why do I pay my scouts to have the same kind of information? I could just watch more games on tv and read more newspapers. :)

Even if you get the best draftee possible you still got a project.

This is quite right, and I dont have problem with this.
I like to plan and execute training of my drafties (even Dwight Howard wasnt dominant in his first year), but what kind of scout you have to be to dont know height of scouted players?
GE gives us "best position", but i dont want centar with only 185cm, or PG with 217cm. I need C, or PG, or SG and I want to draft player in position that I need.
Or if i see 202cm high centar i will pick him and make him SF, right now I dont know what will I get

can we just do more better instead of dragging draft position can we make it number at the side instead?

I would rather differentiate the quality of the draftees according to age (a 5 star 19yo should be better than a 5 star 18yo), but that is a different story.

There have been plenty of suggestions to improve the current system... just to mention a couple of them:
- Make the chance to observe a player for the second time proportional to the star rating (i.e 40% for a 5 star, 30% for a 4 star, 20% for a 3 star and so forth).

These change are right,I hope BBs look it and manage for giving to drafting process finally a good aspect of this game


Last edited by Steve Karenn at 8/25/2009 11:57:19 AM

You're claiming $0 scouting gets the same information as $10k scouting?

You don't understand nothing
But there's a player who spent 10k a week to have the informations,and his scouters made SEVEN second observations about player wuth TWO star rating
There's something wrong in a similar system,it's not simply randomised

If I don't understand nothing, does that mean I understand something?

I didn't claim the system was perfect. YOU know the system is faulty and it affects EVERYONE. So until the BBs fix/change it then the only thing you can do is to take advantage of the system's faults. In my case, I decided not to pay any money for scouting and I ended up having 1 5-star draftee and a few 4-star ones.

I'm sorry for my bad expression
I want to say You don't undertsand nothing of the Newton's discourse
His proposals don't want to reset the value of the money paid for the scouters,but want to increase their values
So,your question was out from every kind of logic.Nevetheless.I badly express me, and I apologize again me of this

Newton claimed that 10k worth of scouting was the same as not scouting in terms of information on draftees. I was talking about that, not his proposal.