BuzzerBeater Forums

I don't like absolutions from you and lemon about what is and is not possible. What HAPPENS I can agree with. People aren't able to profit from training. People aren't able to understand how to acquire talent, train talent, build their roster/finances etc. These are ideas you can put forward that I can support.

I'm more against changing the rules so that you force prices to rise rather than addressing the real, underlying, problems.

I think the game needs to cater more to how people actually play than how the BBs think they should or know they can.

Well I don't disagree at all with this. I'm simply arguing that there is always a back option for everyone. If you force people into a way of playing, they may not understand it or they may not like it. Forcing higher prices through actively affecting the economy is not popular in any way as we've seen. Now, there are some (a minority) who are happy with prices rising because they think they can make even more money. I personally think it is not a good thing because it's unpopular and some people will quit or be extremely unhappy when pushed too far.

I'm saying: rather than fiddle with the economy, do address the alleged problems behind those changes directly. I don't understand why you would push people into a situation they don't like, not because that's what you want, but to serve a secondary purpose (make training more appealing...). Make your trainees play better for you than they would for other teams, for example. Change the training system, I don't know. There are many way you can influence directly the areas of the game you want to affect.

Last edited by Lemonshine at 6/22/2015 6:02:00 AM

unstable prices are how I build my arena. Its unfair really for people who can't deal with it. This creates people feeling prices are too high (Or low) and burned if they can't adjust. Its an external change they have no control over.

This is IMO the core of your arguments and rants and anger about FA changes. NOt if they are right or wrong for the game, but their impact on your team and plans in general. It would be like if you were playing basketball and someone kept raising and lowering the hoop over and over again. It would aggravate anyone who noticed most likely.

No you're wrong here.

It's like Adam Silver saying we changed the hoop's height in order to make dunks easier and more spectacular and improve the show. Then he goes and changes the hoop to 3.30, fewer people dunks, but obviously those players who are still able to dunk are putting one hell of a show for accomplishing a superhuman feat. Meanwhile most people were happy with what the show they were getting before. The example isn't exactly fitting but gives the idea of a complete disconnection between actions and words, which was the case with this change.

I was not pissed off by the change itself. If anything I agree with Alexsandar...I am however very concerned about the general user. If Marin had said, we want to limit or remove Free Agency because there is no need for that, I might have disagreed it was a good change, but it would have ended there and then. Instead, he tried to give us an explanation which did not add up, while also trying to prevent any discussion about it. NT staff concerned that NT caliber players were retiring were unaware of what was going on and players who could have been saved by the NT managers retired, meanwhile he just dismissed everything and everyone for weeks, just repeating that it was all as planned and he was trying to change the economy for the greater good (more training).

I now disagree with both his actions and his reasoning. If he wanted to make training more appealing why change the number of players in the game, instead of changing the training system itself. If he wanted to help training there was no need to argue that prices should be higher, he could have changed the training system itself. If the true reason for the change was to tinker with the economy because he thought it was still deflated, despite the taxes and other changes already introduced, he should have said so immediately, it would have been extremely an unpopular statement to make and, again, there would have been different way to address the problem rather than reducing the number of players (reverse salary decline that is still ongoing as you hinted to as well).

Note that this thread is not about Free Agency there is another thread about that. This thread was just to double check how the userbase perceives efforts to make prices higher...

Last edited by Lemonshine at 6/22/2015 6:05:08 AM

Taking 60 (which would still be a rare and amazing start) to 150 is 90 pops. That is a lot of pops per season anyway you cut it. Training is faster than you think.

The higher the initial skills the faster he trains from the beginning. Elastic effect does not exist only at high values. I think that's how it goes. Hakkinen, a Finnish NT player, had 158 TSP when he sold last season or the season before.

Last edited by Lemonshine at 6/22/2015 6:05:48 AM

Right, but you're now comparing apples and oranges and besides you can't have a draftee with 8s at 18yo. I can give you a 60 TSP trainee who is significantly better than your 55TSP.

If I put in a simulator a 50 vs a 60 TSP with similar distribution for an 11 potential player, the initial gap more or less sticks throughout their training life. That means that the higher initial skills are enough to compensate for faster training speed for the 'holes' as you call them. If that was not the case, you'd see the lower one catching up eventually.

I guess we could ask the person who trained him what was Hakkinen's TSP when he bought him, but my guess would be that he started at 70 including sublevels. Obviously getting 158 TSP (or more) is an amazing achievement, but I don't think that's possible with a 55 initial TSP guy.

A few seasons back they changed how the skill levels work for draftees, such that 19s are higher skills than 18s (on average). This was while I was away I believe.

Ok but 60 for a 19yo is not that impressive, unless you're ok with having a very unbalanced initial skillset which I was when I bought some of my trainees in the last few seasons (and 2 of them were 8/8 defense.

I thout this was still the case, that 8s was max for 18 and they had upped the max to 9 on 19s...I:d have to look around for the news post and discussions etc.

7.00-7.99 for 18yo
8.00-8.99 for 19yo

You can't draft an 18yo guy with 8+

the skill distribution is more important for speed than total because all 7s doesn't happen. People get between 48~low 60s and work from there. IF all you look at is TSP and IF you automatically assume hte higher TSP is always the better draftee...you are wrong.

I agree with the general reasoning here. I don't assume higher TSP=automatically better. That's even very obvious when you think skills train at a different speed. So a 5/7/7 5/5/7, 7'5'' tall player would be amazing as the equivalent training required to bring his outside skills up to that level from 1.00 is enormous. However we were talking about the cream of the crop: those are players with elite combination of initial TSP, height and potential.

Last edited by Lemonshine at 6/22/2015 9:32:12 AM

higher TSP DOES NOT raise training speed, it cannot. It is starting ahead, it doesn:t make you run faster.

My point was more that if you can add 90 skills to a player, then you need a 70ish start to get to 158 and there are actual examples of 158 TSP players (before even considering sublevels), but I agree that my statements on elastic effect were incorrect.

all 5s trains the EXACT same speed as all 6s. That is the logic you are trying to gloss over here. Its a mistake. elastic and CT effect are calculated RELATIVELY, not absolutely.

I just checked and that's correct.


Last edited by Lemonshine at 6/22/2015 9:42:44 AM