BuzzerBeater Forums

...
For this reason I think training the highest level skills, highest level trainers or something along those lines should be limited to higher divisions, to ensure that fake teams in the lower leagues aren't eating up all the NT spots with players that never play in higher level but just sit around on farm team in bottom division.

I would like to see a realism where the best players are playing in the top professional leagues in the world.

I would love to see a player (thru his agent ofcourse) reject a move to your club IF he think he is better then the league-level you are playing at at the moment.

Setting this up in BB could be a daunting task, but doable.
A team collects some sort of "Transferpoints", based on current WR, NR and level of his league he currently playing in.
A player will only accept a transfer to a team with sufficient "Transferpoints".
Teams in the players homecountry gets a little bonus on the "Transferpoints".
Maybe last season or two could affect.
Players already on your team will not be affected. (See Kobe is still cashing checks from Lakers ;-) )

A player who will not sign with your team is shown on the TL with an disabled (grey) Bid-button and some explaning text next to it.
Supporters could filter these players out (feature!). Blocking them from view as a default is not a good way to go.

Thats the end of this OT-post =)

And you chose not to stay up there/could not advance any further. Probably because playing LI all the time is boring ;)

Where you were then and are now is different. I was in the top 100 WR for almost 2 seasons. I beat in b3 competition 3 former champs. I know there are ways to use other offenses and they have their place but LI is the undeniable base for everything, at every level. You get away with not basing yourself around it when the competition is weak, not LI based themself or training/tanking etc.

I bet your current team gets beat by non-LI teams all the time. You aren't in the top 250 right now are you?

I'm not quoting your whole post because this thread apparently blew up while I was away (I haven't read through it yet, either) and if I quote it all, there are no characters left for a response.

I chose not to stay up or advance because I hit the wall financially and agewise - the way I had built the club was that those star potential guys you railed on me as being not worth training who nonetheless played important minutes for me were approaching age 33 (the season I linked to, in fact, one hit 33 and dropped I think 3 levels of OD that season). The guards I had picked up over the seasons to start with them were pretty much the same age, so I was an outside team whose guards were all starting to drop skills. My bigs had several seasons left and were doing fine defensively against LI teams most of the time, but the guards dropping skills was a killer. But look back through the late S20s and look at the scores of my games - see how infrequently teams even got close to 100 on me, and keep in mind I was playing against NT level bigs in some league games and a lot in the PLs.

My current team isn't near the top 250 I don't think nor should it be. I have three 20 year olds now that I'm playing and training at SG that have played pretty much exclusively that position since I acquired them. So of course, you know what that means they are being trained in, and you know that also means that they haven't trained OD yet - though I got an early cross training pop on one of them, which was nifty. The fact that I'm even close to survival in III is evidence that the level of competition there has dropped dramatically. I didn't expect to even be back in III yet, and I actually ended up buying some players this season once I moved up since it looked like I might be able to stick around.

But the travels of my poorly-assembled and occasionally ineptly managed club that somehow fell into at top 1% WR isn't what's important. What matters is that there are roughly 20000 managers playing this game, and about 19500 of them will never approach B3 level competition. They are having it beat into their heads that the only way to play the game is by playing the same game everyone else is. That may well be true at a point - Manon as far as I know is the most successful to date and he reached as far as the round of 32, I think. But below that point, it's proven that with good management, a non-LI team can thrive, despite not having nearly as many players to choose from as an LI team would.

That's nice, was a fine team you had, for a II league. If new guys want to make to this point and no more, they can play every tactic with every kind of players, it's fun.

But we have a different opinion about a word success.

[edited out stuff]

If you want to be of the top, you have no other way atm, it's sad, but true, inside vs all.

Ofc, everybody have his own opinion, I respect that, but people just need to go to top teams of BB and look their matches, like Mordor, how do he get 3 times in row B3 champ? He had all players like all-round beasts, he could play every tactic he want with that players. But does he played an another tactic then inside?

Well, yeah. You'll notice I have always said there's a point where nobody's proven that non-LI can win above. Manon got pretty far, and that's probably the best.

What I'm saying, however, is that below that point, you can win with non-LI. The question is, how high is that point, and how many users does that really effect? If the only reason to play the game is to be a B3 champion, we might as well just tell 19000+ managers to quit wasting their time - including myself - because we're simply not good enough to do so.

But one day, you can win the B3 dude, why not?

At lower lvl ofc you can beat every tactic with an another tactic, doesn't matter, but Inside dominance is like global warming, we all see it, you can say it is happening or not, but it's there, everywhere.

In the end it's just matter of taste what we play with our teams

Show must go on.

I don't like it when people in forums try to argue their way of playing is the most optimal. I can be nasty (which is unnecessary) about it sometimes. I apologize to those I've been nasty to and you are one of them.

I just have an adverse reaction when I think someone is trying to feed me BS. So if we can agree that outside might work and inside might be stoppable but no one has definitely proven it yet, I think we are cool beans. Eh even if we can't agree I'm cool with you.

I don't remember you really being nasty, certainly not to the point of needing to apologize. I'll just bank that apology in case we do reach that point. ;)

I think we're kind of all in agreement in general - until someone proves otherwise, the metagame at the highest level is inside dominated and I don't know that I expect that to change without BB intervention. If someone is here to try to win B3, it'd be crazy to try to do anything different, and instead just try to perfect what pretty much has already been done. My personal way of playing is that I want to see how far I can go with alternate strategies, mostly because I know I don't have the makeup of trying to follow someone else's blueprint. I think the biggest problem is that, for most people, they're looking at LI as some sort of eventuality that they have to give in to or they can't make any progress at all, and you know as well as I do that no matter how good a recipe and shopping list you give some cooks, they still won't get the job done, and I think I dislike the notion that it's LI keeping them down as much as I dislike the notion of telling everyone if they don't play LI, they're not really competing for anything worthwhile.