BuzzerBeater Forums

Who said you have to train your players to idiotic heights?

If you train a monster on the SF position you are a brilliant manager, but if you train a monster center you are a awfull manager?¿¡¡ Please be serious.



Its the salary system its wrong related to the skills value. I've read lot of times, its the same to have an outside player with same JS-JR-OD compared to an inside with IS-ID-RE, but the effect on the game engine is really different, specially for JR.

Said some seasons ago, here if you train a Dwight Howard or a Shaquille O'Neal you are not a good manager, but if you train a Kobe Bryant you are good?




Last edited by Marot at 9/30/2010 5:36:09 PM

It's about creating player with the best skills who still remains cost efficient. You will get more out of your money if you train all around. Do you really need any skills in the green range at all?
Obviously if 21937198273 managers are training Dwight Howards and few are bothering to effectivly train Kobe Bryants. It would be best to train Kobe and buy something near Howard.
D.I team prolly could go with 2 pretty high salary players and weaker support cast. Or go with the Detroit Pistons type of Championship team. At the moment it seems you need a stopper inside and decent shooters in every other spot.

Who is talking about your team? "You" is ment in general.

you are probably right... but can't you see a paradox in your words? Training to 'idiotic hights' seems to be a bad thing? Having extraordinary players is not recommended for a 1st league team?
Come on, a balance of earnings and salaries should be offered by game engine... best training should be our goal... or what?

Imagine a good NBA player demanding (for example) 500M per season... then guess what... no one want's to pay that, and then imagine - he still holds his price (or maybe higher one if he is continuing with training)

Soon, we will have a GRAVEYARD of 200k + salaries Centers. (unemployed, but still expensive) ;)

How is it training to "idiotic heights"? Do you really think any NBA exec would tell Dwight Howard - "Look you are just too good at rebounding, it makes you a bad player. Maybe if you had spent some seasons working on your handling you would be better."

The best players should be wanted. They shouldn't be doing a weekly trip around the TL and being sold for $1,000,000 when players with not one skill better and a few worse sell for more.

I played a soccer manager games once. It was not an online game, but you could play multiplayer.

in that game, in order to buy a new player you had to offer him a contract. The contract said how many seasons you would play him, how much wage he would receive and how much bonus you offer the player, and the team he played for.
If the contract expired you had a chance to renew his contract, but you had to offer a new wage and new bonus for the player, if it was too low, you would loose him.
players with no renewed contract became free agents.

I think a likewise system could be implemented in here. It would always mean the wage would be bearable by the team, and the highest ranked teams can offer more wage so get the better players. It avoids a division 4 team playing his games on 1 monsterplayer, as the players also take into account their skills to choose which offer the want to take, and a dic 1 player will not sign with a div 4 team for example.

the team selling the player can put his minimum sale price for the player, if a team offers this, or more (teams can't see that price!), then the other factors of the contract are validated by the BB system, and if all values are okay, the transfer is made to the best offer. If not, then everyone is told why the player did not get sold (either the bonus for the owning team was too low, or the wage was to low, or the division was not accepted by the player,...)

I think it's a quite interesting system, and that way eveetyone can offer what he likes to pay for any player he sees...

That might be interesting, but the question is how it would be implemented, so it still would be fun.

Imagine that someone from lower league would be permanently rejected even by the players which would normally afford or would be normally necessary for him just because there is always any "ghost" which offers a better wage or its from higher league...

Therefore it could be kind of disadvantage for these from large countries and so on. Im not guessing how it could be complicated for understanding.

But if I try to think about it, it could possibly work as follows.

Normally (and even on the game you mentioned) is the will to go into that club pretty much based on its reputation. Because we have here lot of different countries and strong teams, playing at different levels, we have to find any key by which should be this reputation measured and from what I know it is TV revenue.

So better TV payment you get, better reputation you have. That means any great monster wouldnt go into Italian IV. league as well as into Bahamas I. league.

This thing can work without any contracts or whatever by itself simply by that you coundnt bid on that player.

So on TL you would see on filtered players a faces :-) :-/ :-( which would inform you about ther mood about going into your team.

The contracts you mention would be interresting for doing an important thing, it is simply a fact that these monster players would be affordable. So if you want to hire any decend prospect for the future, you can fix him by the wage of 20k for a 5 seasons or by a wage 5k for a two seasons. As you wish, but I would see in here that for a longer contract would have yourger players tended to take more. On the other hand would be older player more cheap... so if you get a 5 seasons contract for any 27y allstar, he would go for 50k p/w, and if it would be only two seasons, he would want 100k as normally.

So I see this contract thing as a concept of two different motivations.

That way you can avoid a "ghost" salary offering, so simply if you win a bidwar (and you win that only if the player is interrested), you offer a contract you like.

So then you have to choose between how long he will be in your team / how much you wana pay, because if you change your mind (and sell or fire him), you will pay his whole wage anyway, but at once.

Imagine that someone from lower league would be permanently rejected even by the players which would normally afford or would be normally necessary for him just because there is always any "ghost" which offers a better wage or its from higher league...

well eventually the other will have to offer lower wages to stay concurential. Or the team in question needs to spend some more to get a player.

The beautifull thing about the system is that it's self regulating. if managers bid too much, just to get the players, they will get behind on other teams that choose their expenses more carefull and also can get good players for less...

if the player wants to go to a higher league it will mostly be because he belongs there. Higher league teams will not be bidding on lesser players, as they need better players in their league to be able to win. This makes diffrent levels of players fit in diffrent divisions, and they go 1 up or down, but due to the system, will stay in that area...

The only downside with that system was that for free agents, you didn't need to offer a bonus for the team (as the player did not belong anywhere) and that made them realy cheap, and only buying free agents was key to making money fast. But that problem is easely solved as BBs could set minimum bonusses for free agents as well, and that money would disapear from the game (kind of like it is now)

but what if soemone bid just a high salary so that the seller get low selling price, i don
t like it that way.

but what if soemone bid just a high salary so that the seller get low selling price, i don
t like it that way.

uh?

didn't I state the seller has to give a minimum bonus he wants to receive for the player?

meaning:
bid 1: bonus for owner: 100k, wage 50k, bonus for player 10k, contract for 3 years.
bid 2: bonus for owner: 300k, wage 20k, bonus for player 20k, contract for 3 years.
bid 3: bonus for owner:700k, wage 5k, bonus for player 50k, contract for 3 years.

now let's say the owner demands a bid of at least 250k.

Then bid 1 with the high wage, the one the player would like best, can not be accepted because the owning team doesn't get the money he wants.

an other example that you might bring in as disturbing is a very high price for the owner, to make sure you get the player and then pay low wages: bid 3, will also be declined because the player thinks the wage is to low (set up by the system, this player wants a minimum of 15k wage).

Bid 2 COULD be accepted.
It could also be that the player wants a bonus of minimum 10k for each contractyear, and then none of the bids are accepted and the bidders get the following text:
bidder 1: the owner of the lpayer didn't want to let him go for your offered price
bidder 2: the player didn't like the bonus you offered and declined the offer
bidder 3: the player didn't like the wage and declined your offer

likewise could a younger player, with high potential want to sign a contract of 2 years max, and decline because you offered 5 years. Older player like stability and are likely to reject contracts of 1 year, and are willing to accept 5 year contracts with lesser wage, because they then are sure of 5 years playing...