BuzzerBeater Forums

you mean "if you get lucky"

you mean "if you get lucky"

no I don't.

you mean "if you get lucky"

no I don't.

i think what the other guy tried to say is that you can spend hundreds of thousands on scouting points, manage to draft the best player available but the best player available ends up being a 3,6k 6'4" superstar SG with atrocious OD, which means he will be more seasons away of being a serviceable player than Bruno Caboclo.

hopefully that will change with the alleged new draft improvements from next season on. investing in the draft is currently the third best way to waste money, behind only hiring a lvl6+ coach and building 20k+arenas.

Last edited by LA-Bernspin at 12/30/2016 3:14:57 AM

you mean "if you get lucky"

no I don't.

You can talk the talk, but you should walk the walk too. You're either too unexperienced regarding the draft, or never experienced the extremely luck factor that is needed to get the best player of the class.

I have drafted the best austrian rookie twice (without proper scouting) and ended up with nothing less than hot garbage the rest of the time.

Context clues and some mild research would show you that "I haven't done a single draft"
But it would also tell you I am a returning player.

So, I'll play along, whom are these 2 best Austrian rookies. What are their career highlights and achievements? All the hot garbage afterwards. Did every single one of them get fired? What happened to the ones sold? What are their career highlights?

Just because a player never does his country's u21 or NT does not make him hot garbage or any less of a player if he can still contribute to a team staying in a top division or promoting up to one etc.

Your definition is quite subjective, as I said, with around 140k in scouting you can get players equivalent to what people pay 5 mil for. Context clues there say more about what people are paying or over paying (long leach) money for.

Your definition is quite subjective, as I said, with around 140k in scouting you can get players equivalent to what people pay 5 mil for. Context clues there say more about what people are paying or over paying (long leach) money for.

you can also spend way more than 140k and end up with an allstar 3,2k 19yo because that was the best player available in your draft. meanwhile someone in a lower division plenty of bots who hasn't spent anything and hasn't scouted gets a 18yo 4,5k hall of famer as a 7th choice because this guy was randomly available on his draft list and had to be assigned to some team.

but, yeah, the BBs promised better players will be available in the draft. let's wait.

Context clues and some mild research would show you that "I haven't done a single draft"
But it would also tell you I am a returning player.

I fully understood - I won't continue the discussion anyways, because investing your money in the draft has been a borderline good investment in the last years - especially with the abundance off decent talent on the market.

hopefully that will change with the alleged new draft improvements from next season on. investing in the draft is currently the third best way to waste money, behind only hiring a lvl6+ coach and building 20k+arenas.

there hasn't been much specifications over the draft improvement. If it's in general skills (as in top rookies are still the same, but the garbage gets a significant improvement, which means that there could be more than 1 or 2 gems in a single draft) then yes, the price might come down a bitt.

however, if the overall skills of all players go up by let's say an average of 6 TSP, then i feel sorry for the guy's who had good draft this season. If the draft indeed is better next season, with better players, then managers will spend even more for the top rookies. This because they'll have a shot at overtaking the rookies drafted at the end of season 36. To be fair, i feel sorry for the teams who drafted decent players with the last seasons draft, cause if the next generation are improved, then they basically have been cheated out of getting a top notch prospect!

Hence, anyone who sold their 'top rookies' probably got premium cash for it.

And i don't consider spending cash on drafting a waste. If you reach age and skillset, then you interview the couple of good 18y olds and you can find the top potential players.

60 points (10 for the ages and length, along with 5x10 for all the skills) lets you know exactly what skill you are drafting. then add another 20 points for the interview of the top 10 prospects and you will have netted a top lvl prospect if there was one in your draft.

that means 80 points should net you the best available option. considering we hhave 14 weeks per season, you can get 56 draft points from 1 season ( 40k a week). Now i'm sure you don't need to invest in the draft each season right? So put it down for 10k for 2 points per week for 3 seasons and you'll have 78 points ==> enough to find 1 great player every 3 seasons (that is if you have secured the top draft spot ofcourse). And that great player will only cost you 420k (3*14*10k), which by my estimates is a joke, considering the amount of 1.5M or higher prices rookies that get sold


concerning the topic, as the question was if a max spending cap was implemented: that would hurt almost everyone.

I'll quickly explain why:

Say you are a team in III or II. the players who start in III are generally the back up players for the teams in II. teams in II have 2 stars and the rest would be back up material for the top division teams. Now if you implement a spending cap, the top division teams won't want to splash out cash anymore. They'll want to use a maximum for their new starters. the leftovers, would be used for the back up players, who generally are provided by teams from II,III or IV. Since they have less cash, the prices of those B- & C- tiers players get pushed down.

==> the cash remains with the top teams, and lower division teams get less cash, meaning they'll have an even harder time catching up to the big boys.

What can the top tear teams spend their cash on?
*) on scouting points. But hey, they are already in the top division. doesn't seem likely they'll need those points any time soon.
*) on staff (pushing prices for trainers, PR and doctor up even more). means the lower teams will once again have a harder time accessing the good trainers to train their players or fill their arena's.
*) on arena expansion. but they already have 20k+ arena's, so why bother?
*) on players with larger salaries, but that means that they'll be even stronger.

see next post for part 2 ;)

So implementing a spending cap would only be beneficial for the top teams. they'll be guaranteed to have heaps of cash for the forseable future. more than they can ever spend or they'll have a super strong team for a couple of seasons & then follow the normal lvl finances.

either way, those who get punished are the lower division teams ;)

I can understand that it's frustrating to have a team drop into your division, spend 3M or more and secure promotion right away. however, a spending cap isn't the solution to solving that issue (or the fact that to many teams have way to large cash reserves)!



Making a suggestion is all good and well. but always be sure to think about the possible influences it would have on the game as a whole (especially the financial implications) It might end up causign you more harm than good ;)

So implementing a spending cap would only be beneficial for the top teams. they'll be guaranteed to have heaps of cash for the forseable future. more than they can ever spend or they'll have a super strong team for a couple of seasons & then follow the normal lvl finances.

either way, those who get punished are the lower division teams ;)

I can understand that it's frustrating to have a team drop into your division, spend 3M or more and secure promotion right away. however, a spending cap isn't the solution to solving that issue (or the fact that to many teams have way to large cash reserves)!



Making a suggestion is all good and well. but always be sure to think about the possible influences it would have on the game as a whole (especially the financial implications) It might end up causign you more harm than good ;)

Between your last post and this you have me convinced of the error in my thinking with the spending cap: I was looking at it the wrong way.

Rather than a spending cap:
1. Lets get rid of the luxury(hoarding tax).
2. Have only the last place team relegate again.
3. Limit how much you can earn and hoard in a very simple fashion.
a. Whatever money you have left at the end of the season. You do not keep all of it.
I. 50% of it just goes away
II. this limits how quickly you can hoard up money, now 1 season of tanking will no longer cut it, it would have to be for multiple seasons. With it being multiple seasons tanking to that last spot is no longer ideal as a demotion, means less money for next season added with whatever was left to rollover after spending and purging.


(I haven't been to D. I so throwing out random numbers). Lets say I make 10M in D1 in 1 season. and I don't spend any of it, Like my staff. etc. For the next season, I only have 5 Million of that. Now I can do this same process, and end of this 2nd season I will have 15 million. again happy with staff etc. now 7.5. etc. We all get it from there.

I believe that this will help re-regulate prices from TLs to be more reasonable as while the supply vs demand is still an issue. It gives more of a FINITE budget to everyone vs the people with seemingly infinitely deep pockets to pull cash from. Also, I believe it will encourage more people to scout, and train players themselves, regardless of divion and level. You yourself outlined how at only 10k a week, for 3 seasons. 420K. You can essentially "Suck for Luck" or go for the "LeBron sweepstakes" or whatever fancy term to pretty much ensure a sure fire HOF (figurative not literal or potential) player.

I await the constructive criticism. (criticism is good, that's what spurs change and innovation, by trying, failing, and repeating).