BuzzerBeater Forums

At that moment it was an extra money so yes, it really helped them.


To Charles:

I've read your comment of the 3 pointer and its really hard to do it:

-If you see a PF/C scoring a 3point its more because the other PF/C has a bad OD rather than your PF/C had a good JS/JR.

-Second, unless you know really well how offensive flow works and you know more or less how the distribuation of the possession are going to be its really hard that your multiskilleds PF or C takes more than 4-5 3points attempts.

On our NT thats a thing i taked in care, for example on our semifinal our center was able to score 2/3(three point shot), but as i said its more because the other C had bad OD and in any case i was expecting more then 2-3 three shot attempts and the fact its that even if i have a multiskilled player on our team i will prefer to put on the lineup a big man with good primary skills rather than one who have better secundary skills but with lower primary because the game engine doesnt make attractive to put a ''Bargnani or a Rasheed Wallace'' players who try lots of three points shots because the opportunity of a PF-C taking a three shot attempt is not more than 2-3 or maximum 4 while you will lose power on the inside(IS,ID,RE)

Last edited by Marot at 3/24/2010 9:46:46 AM

You are saying that teams should train game shape more often in order to get better results on the long term. But game shape training wasn't supposed to be a short term strategy?
I think one of the bigger challenges on this game is to balance training and game shape by training the appropriate amount of minutes. If game shape training becomes a long term strategy so this game has lost its path.
I insist that the game should priorize skills training above everything else.
If everybody realise that is better to give up training skills and just concentrate on game shape it will be terrible for BB.
Vitoria Devils has reached the finals on BuzzerBeater Best las season training only game shape, and I think this was the key for Raonne's achievement. He deserves all the glory for finding that way to the top, but his example should be an exception.
The best teams should reach the top by their efforts on the training ground: developing great players, selling them on the market, making a profit, buying better players to their rosters, being able to manage everything without disregard to the minutes played by each player and everything else. That's what developers should grant, that teams that train properly get better and better results. Everything else is lame.

My point is that as teams are finally spending their entire budget, I think we will see some teams choosing to risk more in order to stay in top division, or risk more in order to go on a longer cup run.

Division III-IV-V teams in big leagues will be spending their entire budget and with the salary changes will probably have to downgrade their team.

Division II teams will reduce profits but it won't be that dramatic for them. Division I teams will still be making obcene amounts of money.

Have you considered changing the attendance formulas?

I actually might suggest that perhaps the answer to this question is broader - for the top teams in the world, it's possible that we've created an incentive for some teams in top divisions to consider training game shape and use their best players to fund a tournament run.

I consider that statement as a big game over for top division teams. If there is no point in training your players anymore, there is no point in continuing to play this game.

Agreed 100%

it seems to me this is going to effect mid level teams more then top div teams...
and that its going to drive a fair amount of users away, i mentioned this in another thread but whats the point of having hof and all time great players if you cant be allowed to train them to there cap?
no team is going to be able to sustain one such player and still be doing well in there league.

As an aside, this is one reason shot blocking is often considered worthless -- few people have trained shot blocking to the point that the skill in blocking a shot is comparable to the skill with which the shot is attempted, and the game engine is less responsive to changes in skill when there is a large difference.

Charles,there is a thing you(as BB) inserted called potential.If i would(I'll never want) have a player with a shot blocking skill comparable to the skill of the opposite big man,i should have a shot blocking skill above 10.But if i spend my potential for shot blocking,my center would be no able(or very less able) to shoot/defend /rebound.And if the top shot blockers can block only three shots for game,it's a too high scarifice,in terms of salary and potential,to have high shot blocking
That's why shot blocking is considered worthless,not becaues we want to undervalue it

First off, the answer to this question is very different in Spain and a smaller country in terms of how long it takes to reach division III and how strong the teams are that have made it there.

That's why a system that give the same money from arena(that are the main part of the incomes in this game) to a spanish/italian/german/polish team and a small team is completely wrong,as many users are saying from many many seasons


Last edited by Steve Karenn at 3/24/2010 1:02:02 PM

i don't get it.... very quantitatively we have increased salaries more ON A PERCENTAGE BASIS for top level players, who play on top level teams.

So for instance, a player with skills making 300K before, now makes ~330K, a 30K hike.

In contrast a player making 30K makes now ~32K a 2K hike.

So.... both in absolute terms and relative terms, we have affected upper division teams more than middle and lower division teams. It is simply untrue that we have affected lower division teams more than the upper divisions.

Remember now shot blocking doesn't only affect blocked shots, but also help defense.

so what use is there in mvp+ players now? as no one can afford to max there caps so why do we have any potential above mvp?