BuzzerBeater Forums

A. Low prices don't affect lower and mid-level teams adversely ...

... and here's why they don't:

... the lower level teams are competing with each other.

See? We agree on something.

But the long and short of it is that the reason inflation is better than deflation by a wide margin for newer teams is precisely that it helps erode the advantage older and higher level teams have. As long as player prices are low, replacing one set of aging veterans with another, slightly less aging set costs less in terms of a percentage of revenue ...

That is just so wrong it's scary. The reason that a wildly high cost of players OR inflation is better for UPPER level teams is that they CAN replace one set of aging veterans with another, slightly less aging set. A lower level team cannot even afford to replace more than one or two players that way -- tops.

Personally, though it'll be harder for my club in the short term, I love that inflation is eroding my ability to buy a replacement player for the cost of two home games' revenue.

See? For a lower level team we'd be talking about replacing a player for 10 or even more home games revenue if they are lucky -- measured in home games revenue, the upper level team is at least five times better off.

Sometimes if you just read what you write instead of being so defensive you could see this.

Last edited by Mike Franks at 3/24/2015 4:06:53 AM

I'd rather the game move toward rewarding teams for creating players...

Obviously you're getting your wish. BB-Marin feels the same way, and the game has become a training game rather than a basketball mgmt game. Even the whole economy is adjusted to reward training at the expense of any other winning strategy.

As managers find this to be true they have to decide:
A. stay in this training game,
B. find a basketball game, or
C. neither, it's time to read a book.

we arent just losing player due to inflation, i stated it before. we are losing players because we are taking out the fun factor in playing this game. the thing is this is a management simulation game so what is the thing the utmost matter is to see yourself having this just as your own. whether to see trainee improving at a pace you like and contribute, to see your team win ball games but because the game evolve itself to what it is now its getting complicated every step because the needed change to make it balance but hurts more the new or lower teams than those in division 1 teams.

Very good point

I'd rather the game move toward rewarding teams for creating players...

Obviously you're getting your wish. BB-Marin feels the same way, and the game has become a training game rather than a basketball mgmt game. Even the whole economy is adjusted to reward training at the expense of any other winning strategy.

As managers find this to be true they have to decide:
A. stay in this training game,
B. find a basketball game, or
C. neither, it's time to read a book.

If there is one advantage in the game that lower level teams have, it is the ability to be able to train players without as much of a negative effect on their game results. This has always been the case, and this will presumably always be the case. Whether training for pure profit, training to create one set of players to keep and a set to sell for replacements at other positions, or training everyone to keep, it's the sole advantage to being lower in level. If you don't want to do that, of course, that's your right - but then of course those who do will continue to improve and move up, while those who don't will flounder.

Give it a year or so, though. I'm sure that the current high prices will start people actually training again, and soon enough there will be supply for a demand that will likely decrease, and then there'll be a whole new market of talent to deplete.

hrudey has its points

but i find him to be dead or reacts to matters as long its said by another person rather than him.

im not saying his bad or hate the attitude but sometimes even in between the lines of matters just what he says and how we agree or reacts positively doesnt get any warrant either

this is just me

No, you're not wrong at all. I tend to be very much against "you can't play the game X way" simply because it's perceived as less efficient. I'm also very much against anything that's telling people that competing / training is a waste of time, and that they need to tank / recycle old players / etc. I also tend to react strongly when people equate something they don't like in the game to the reason people are leaving the game or that it makes the game too hard for new users.

My opinion is that of course the game is hard for new users. If you come into a league against competent managers at any level, the time they've had to improve their team is a clear advantage. A user's job, then, is to try to figure out how they want to improve their team for the short and long term. The least helpful thing, in my mind, is to reiterate that they're simply at a disadvantage, and that they need to wait for BB to save them - or worse, that they need to just not bother competing at the level they're at to try to build up money to buy their way out of problems.

So of course, I came into the game and it was a time where there was pretty solid deflation, people preaching that there was no way to win doing anything other than LI, that training anyone was a waste and it was stupid to train low potential players. Naturally, I decided that I wasn't going to let other people dictate how to play the game just because it was "more efficient" or anything else. The fact that I've been successful doing so is a nice benefit, but I also think that I had stayed in my IV league with the same group of managers for 10 more seasons I would have enjoyed the game just as much.

I am probably going to try to stay out of this topic now since it is pretty much one of those that it looks like there's never going to be an agreement on and of course, none of us who are involved primarily seems to be one to let it go easily. ;) My parting thoughts, I guess, are that if you want to play the game a certain way (be it training, just purchasing players with gate receipts, homegrown players only, daytrading, whatever), as long as it's legal, don't let anyone talk you out of doing that.

If there is one advantage in the game that lower level teams have, it is the ability to be able to train players without as much of a negative effect on their game results.

Oh really? Lower level teams have to play their best lineup twice a week in league games, and their trainees once a week in scrimmages. Aside from staying in the Cup longer if they choose to do so, what do upper level teams do differently?

Give it a year or so, though. I'm sure that the current high prices will start people actually training again ...

It is already a training game, but wouldn't it be nice if they made training a logical system? One can dream, I suppose ...

In D2 is definitely possible, but you need: reasonably balanced players who can play multiple positions (in particular one of the guards and one of the bigs should be able to play SF without getting destroyed, depending on what you need to train). The problem is that these kind of players (with relevant secondaries) are a) extremely expensive; b) for lower level leagues, getting deleted because they have very high TSP/salary ratio, but sometimes fail to meet the FA criteria.

If your team is good enough and only have 2 trainees, you will probably be able to survive in some D1 as well, although it's a lot harder and involves properly scouting and choosing which game to throw and to go for every week. That's easier said than done of course and it means that without training you have a team that is probably good enough to make the playoffs.

That and then you need to hope you're not in a very competitive and balanced conference like the blue one here: http://www.buzzerbeater.com/league/978/overview.aspx

Last edited by Lemonshine at 3/24/2015 4:26:49 PM

As long as your not trying to promote it would be a lot easier to train out of position in lower leagues.

As long as you're not trying to promote, what is to prevent you from training out of position at any level?

Not only that, but "training out of position" is one of those illogical elements of training as it is currently constructed. Using an illogical flaw in the training structure to try to defend training is itself illogical.