BuzzerBeater Forums

I mean by TPE that it would be only as a tool for finding desired players and afterwards calculating the average. So 500k centers would be on a different category than 100k centers, therefore you can get hired 500k player for 100k p/w or 1M p/w, but depends on the average for how many such players are usually hired, on which direction he will go.

This means a important thing, once you have the key to this category (C around 500k) defined, you will not influence other players by this and raising demand on this cathegory from managers also means raising demand from players.

So Ronaldo is still Ronaldo, however he will be pretty much kind and will force the salary to the level other players like him has.

The difference between monsters and multiskills is then defined by mechanism itself, because once you can get player exponentially into higher TPE cathegory, his demands will raise anyway, but its raise will be just for the few skills. Thats why I find this kind of TPE at this point pretty much adequate.

People need to train smarter. It's that simple. The salary formula isn't wrong, it's part of the checks and balances that prevent the game being too easy. The game is about running a club, not who can train the best player in one position for an NT.

When you post it makes no sense that the highest salary players are unattractive, all I hear is "I don't understand this game I'm playing" .

We've had a 500kish centre in the EBBL and it made the club who invested in him worse, and he was gone at the end of the season. The new Isolation tactic might make these star players more of a feasible strategy - and it might be worth giving one player half your payroll - but at the moment, no way.

Players you refer to as the best in the game, aren't, because the game has different needs to real life to be a fun game. The game needs managers to made decisions based on trade offs, not simply adopt one strategy and go with it.

If you are training a player for the NT, you have to accept you are ruining his value for your club. That's one of the trade offs in this game - and managers who have given up on club success often opt for the "I'll just train a player for the NT and that will make me feel better" option. If that's what they enjoy, fair play, but these players should perhaps stop trying to break the delicate mechanism that holds the game together to allow managers to compete to achieve club success - in order to suit their alternative view of what the game is about.

At the end of the day, this game is a club-management game, not a training sim.



Last edited by Elmacca at 10/13/2010 1:14:16 PM

I disagree. You say that people should train smarter? What do you count as training smarter? Give me an example of a hypothetical players skills and his associated salary.
In the current system, if I train a player well then his salary will be harmful to my club by the time he is 23. Does that mean that this game doesn't want you to train anyone past that?? If so, that is stupid.
At the moment the best player for a team is the best skills for the cheapest price. However, what we are all saying is that this isn't how it should be. The best player should be the best skills and that player should have an affordable salary. Using your logic players like michael jordan, shaq, kobe etc shouldn't be in the game at all because teams that have a superstar like them won't have a good team.

Again, your focus is too much on individual players.

It is about wage-efficient training, and that is the best way to create a gameworld where multiple routes to club success are possible. If your off-court setup can't support one-position training - maybe you could learn something about strategy from that?

By the way, comparisons with Kobe etc. are trite. The monsters created here are more like aliens from another world.
But by allowing their creation, there is more scope in the mid-range to create a bunch of wage-efficient talents who can win your club something.

The salary-capping idea turns the game into a monster player training contest, with the gameworld being bent out of shape to support this idea. It's not a great idea.




Last edited by Elmacca at 10/14/2010 5:28:49 AM

So whats the point having MVP+ potentials in this game?

Even superstar potential seems to be good enough to make a player too expensive. If there is a possibility to train a player in his core skills to the max, I think it is wrong not to do it. Who would have told Jordan/Shaq/LaBron to stop training because no team would be able to pay his salary...

so if the "monster" are so undesirablke, no club in reality would give t. In reality the best player, manage to get the highest salary ;)

Again, your focus is on the individual player - and not the club roster. You don't seem to understand/or you're choosing to ignore the trade off between changing what the game sees as excessive training to desireable trading and the need for multiple strategies to achieve success within the game.

That's fine - I understand the emotional pull of wanting to training "the best" player in the game - but I am suggesting to you that it's too simplistic an approach to create an interesting, challenging gameworld.

Training monsters players for NTs is just not what Buzzerbeater is about. At best, training individual players for the NT is a kind of sub-game within Buzzerbeater for those who don't want to play the more complex game.

Isolation
What I will say is that I believe the Isolation tactics have the potential to make having $400k centres or $250k guards a possible strategy for Tier I/possibly Tier II teams, and bring these players more into the club-focused game.

If I'm a top team making, say $950k in revenues per week, I might decide to spend 100k on staff, 150k on bench players and employ a starting 5 with salaries something like 100/65/65/70/400 and play inside-focused Isolation instead of having 125/95/80/180/220 and playing Low Post or Look Inside.

OR playing Isolation outside and going 250/125/75/100/150 instead of playing motion or RNG and going 150/150/100/125/175.

Scale down proportionately to lower weekly revenues.

However, we'll have to wait and see how Isolation pans out over the next two or three seasons. It's going to be a tricky balancing act for the BBs to pull off.

Training monsters players for NTs is just not what Buzzerbeater is about. At best, training individual players for the NT is a kind of sub-game within Buzzerbeater for those who don't want to play the more complex game.

Thats not what a national team should be... I still think it is absurd that you get penalized for training an elite player.

Are you arguing that the NTs are more important than the clubs?

I believe that both the deploymentss have thier right arguments

I agree that the top players should be part of the top teams,as they should be able to afford at least one of them,or two only slighty worse,without lowering drammatically the level of a team or being forced to stop soon their development

But I agree also with the fact that a salary cap for the top players would be simply unfair for the large part of the managers that had to take difficult decisions to have an efficient-wage policy for their teams

And i yet said that the solution should be the result of others general wage reductions(so it would affect all the players in almost the same way),and an improvement in attendence cap(and of the promotion prizes),related to the level of the team and of the league