BuzzerBeater Forums

The intend of the change was (if i got that right) to reduce the competitive advantage of LI teams in terms of salary (LI guards had low salary compared to outside guards).
What i see now is that LI guards might have indeed become slightly more expensive, however, LI big men (high IS, low guard skills) have dropped in salary while teams with balanced players have seen a rise across the board.

Summary: The salary advantage for specialist LI teams was increased instead of decreased compared to more flexible, high TSP teams.

Well, my conclussions are not really the same as yours.
What I see is that guards who were inside trained have a higher salary now, and that PFs an Cs with skills trained to defend outside tactics have a higher salary now.
I don't think this is helping LI dominance.

The change was not supposed to help LI dominance.
My point was that non-Li teams were hit just as hard, maybe even harder by the change than LI teams.
In my team for example, all players had a rise in salary unless they had skill drops while i see some comparable LI teams that had no such rise.

well... looking at my team I don't see major changes.
Davidson (133 TSP, IS 12, PG) - salary is 125k instead of 120k*
Tallec (129 TSP, IS 14, SF) - salary is 80k instead od 74k*

So I guess the change was only minor - which I approve a lot. Training High TSP players is challenging, so it should not be punished by drastic rising salaries for these players.

* buzzer-manager prediction

Last edited by Superheld at 12/8/2016 10:53:00 AM

Indeed the change was minor, biggest rise i had was 7k (without training).
The point here is that the primary reason for the raise was to balance the salary for LI guards which it did to some effect.
To prevent a big fuss they kept it small (could be more from my point of view) and somewhat lowered the salary for pure A-skill builds. They also increased the cost of things like PA for C which in turn leads to the result that a team with 2 LI guards and 2 Li bigs (high IS, low secondaries) saw a total drop in salary because the raise for guards was outweighted by the decrease for the bigs, while teams build for e.g. motion saw a raise for all players.

Punishing high TSP player training by lowering the value of such players (higher salary) while decreasing LI team salary was not exactly what the announced no matter how minor the change was.

Indeed the change was minor, biggest rise i had was 7k (without training).
The point here is that the primary reason for the raise was to balance the salary for LI guards which it did to some effect.
To prevent a big fuss they kept it small (could be more from my point of view) and somewhat lowered the salary for pure A-skill builds. They also increased the cost of things like PA for C which in turn leads to the result that a team with 2 LI guards and 2 Li bigs (high IS, low secondaries) saw a total drop in salary because the raise for guards was outweighted by the decrease for the bigs, while teams build for e.g. motion saw a raise for all players.

Punishing high TSP player training by lowering the value of such players (higher salary) while decreasing LI team salary was not exactly what the announced no matter how minor the change was.

Completely agreed!

I still don't get your point. I'm really trying to understand how is it that PFs with high OD having more salary benefits LI teams.
The inside players who have less salary are the ones who worst could defend motion or run and gun, so I still don't understand how it benefits LI teams either.
Outside players with high JS and JR and low IS have less salary. I don't think iit's good for LI teams either.
I would accept that you think that the change should have been higher or that it will not stop people prefer a LI team, but I don't understand how this measure is punishing motion (unless you want to play motion with guards with 16IS and PFs and Cs with 15OD and PA)

I still don't get your point. I'm really trying to understand how is it that PFs with high OD having more salary benefits LI teams.

Are you seriously suggesting that all those 18 IS, 14 ID, 12 Reb center in third league got a raise in salary due to their high OD?

The inside players who have less salary are the ones who worst could defend motion or run and gun, so I still don't understand how it benefits LI teams either.

The success of LI primarily depends primarily on guards.
LI guards with low JS, JR but 20 OD and 20 IS have a better efficiency per cost of ownership ratio than outside guards.
(cost of ownership depends on salary and training cost, the latter influences TL purchase prices if you dont train yourself)
With cheaper guards, LI teams can afford big men with more IS to overpower the ID an outside team can afford after paying for their more expensive outside guards while suppressing game flow with their high OD guards.
You are right that LI bigs on top teams do have OD but Li bigs were always about scoring more than your opponent, not defense.

Outside players with high JS and JR and low IS have less salary. I don't think iit's good for LI teams either.

They do, but not on top teams. IS is, with the current engine, quite important on guards, even for outside oriented tactics.
A 18 JS, 18 JR, 18 OD, 13 IS guard had a smaller percentage salary raise than a 5 JS, 5 JR, 20 OD, 20 IS guard but since its total salary was much higher to begin with the net raise was about equal if not more. This is due to the change appearing to be linear on IS, not exponential with e.g. the first 10 points of IS rather cheap with a steep increase once you close in on 20.

I would accept that you think that the change should have been higher or that it will not stop people prefer a LI team, but I don't understand how this measure is punishing motion (unless you want to play motion with guards with 16IS and PFs and Cs with 15OD and PA)

The reason i talk about LI is that this was given as the reason for the change.
I would indeed like to run motion with exactly those kind of players, yes.

To summarise: the intention to remove LI team salary advantage was missed with the change (in my humble opinion) but more important, the change penalizes high TSP training by increasing the cost of ownership for those players, which (in my humble opinion again) is 180 degrees from what they should do.
If you want faster training for more players on TL you could just increase the number of available staff by 50% or increase training speed by 20% or something similar.

I am feeling a bit strange explaining fundamentals to an EGM, so if you dont get my point again i will give up ;)
Have a nice day.



Last edited by Robard at 12/9/2016 3:35:54 AM

Lets just wit for the season opening post, maybe it comes with some explanations about the changes and the reasoning behind.

I think there is no reason not too agree with your post. On top of that, I think that the suggested change of 3pt line in the previous season (making it little closer to the net, thus encouraging outside oriented players and tactics and rising the 3pt%) wasn't that noticeable either and didn't seem to reflect on good JS/JR player percentages.

I think there is no reason not too agree with your post. On top of that, I think that the suggested change of 3pt line in the previous season (making it little closer to the net, thus encouraging outside oriented players and tactics and rising the 3pt%) wasn't that noticeable either and didn't seem to reflect on good JS/JR player percentages.

I think that there was an complaint, that 3p% was too high now. Not sure what happened with that though.

IMO: the problem with 3point shooting isn't the %age, but the low volume though.