BuzzerBeater Forums

Aren't the 4 and the 6 plain opposites?
I mean...
The 4 would make the number of valuable trained players explode, which would make the prices fall.
The 6 would make the price go up.

What is your real aim?

i don't like such collective threads, since you cann't get a dgood discussion and overview.

1. suggested several times in own threads

2. also not really new, but i don't like it and not so common

3. a 2-3 zone is cheaper to get then a mtm team, and for the SF you also find a useful place in a normal team even when it maybe a backup

4. this will just change the quality of player we condsider as crap, you should have seen the dudes we trained at the beginning since there was so few draftees.

6. i think will come and maybe a different way, but FA get actually slowly removed don't know why this would be changing in future

#1 - I think this will happen in offseason. I even suggested a formulae for it, but any way they plan to raise it, is fine with me.
#2 - I think 4 weeks is too long. This might kill off the newbie user who has made a mistake. You could still rent a player and then fire him. Nothing really would change. Perhaps a 10 day contract would be an option (this would mean: you can't list or fire the player for 10 days). I still think "ruining" GS is a better solution. Perhaps decreasing GS by 2 and adding the 10 day listing/fire restriction would work out well to stop rentals.
#3 - This is simply not understood by players and has worked well for some teams. I don't think this needs a tweak atm.
#4 - This is not needed, good quality trainees are already cheap on TL. There are stronger and weaker drafts. You getting a good draftee late in the first round, depends on the teams picking before you and their investments in the draft.
#5 - Obviously as a supporter this change is long overdue and I have been a supporter my whole BB career.
#6 - This is not really needed, I have even seen a bunch of decent players retire with current setup.

1) No opinion

2) Instead of making it four weeks why not have the value raise from 4 days to 6 days to 8 days etc, everytime you buy a player?

3) No. I'm 100% with Manon here, the zone is not broken, just the way people play it. Once we try what the BB's say works (Shotblocking, on ALL players) and it still isn't effective then I might change my mind, but not until then.

4) Yes. I hate firing all three draftees each year. Makes the draft insanely boring for the top seeded teams.

5) Sure, if they have room.

6) Yes. Prices for vets need to go up while trainee prices need to drop. Perfect solution.


Love 4,6
2 has potential
1,5 not important to me
Hate 3

Last edited by Chekreyes at 7/3/2012 10:02:15 AM

I like idea six but I think is should be scaled to age... maybe make the players 25 year and younger still 10x their salary and raise the starting price 1x each year they are older than 25. This would simulate players wanting get more money then they are really worth at the end of their career. And it would get more of those older players retired.

All the zones are wonky from time to time honestly. I like to play the 1-3-1 and sometimes it works great and other times when I have a guy not built for it in a spot it completely breaks down, even if they are supposed to be in a relative protected zone in the traditional 1-3-1 in the middle and I've seen this in upper division games too. I don't know if these are 'slider' issues or game engine issues. Like possession over 24 seconds or reset of the shot clock on blocks.

I do wish the draft was a bit better too, and that 19 year olds weren't relative garbage. I'd say get rid of them, or make them better and I'd make players relatively better in higher division, I think its a little ridiculous that I can pull a trainee that better then most of the guys DI guys got.

I don;t know how easy any of that is to code but it would make the game more enjoyable in the long haul.