BuzzerBeater Forums

I think the TPE is very important and is a critical tool for the vast majority of players in this game who are clearly fairly casual. However the problem is that right now the TPE is doing them no good service by being so innaccurate. Last season when I was in the hunt for a true SF I tracked every great SF on the TL for about a month. After a while I had a good understanding of what the sort of player I was after would cost, which was about $2-3 million. However the TPEs on most of those players was usually around the $500,000-$1,000,000 mark.

I know it is hard but the TPE is an important tool which needs to be retained and improved.

Last edited by yodabig at 4/27/2012 4:12:42 AM

I agree although it would take a lot of memory and computation power to keep a massive database like that being constantly accessed, then again I don't know how modern computers handle things like that, maybe it is trivial now. The TPE just can't be based on one skill it needs to take in a lot more. What if instead of a TPE on players there was a TPE enquiry box that only worked on demand. Would require a lot less processing rather than having all players constantly calculated it would only function when someone asked. It would be like the search on the transfer list. So you could specify age, height, potential, up to four skills etc. Then it could search the database for the last entire season as suggested.

TPE is important and useful for newer players. It's also much more accurate for the level of players newer teams would be looking to buy as there are tonnes of 10-20k wage players on the market.

If you're in II or I then obviously the kind of players you will be after are less common meaning TPEs have less or no comparables to base an estimate off. But for most managers, by the time they reach that level they will have a fairly good understanding of the relative values of players.

I agree wholeheartedly with Tortuga.

I play a bunch of other manager games, and have never really gotten a feel for their equivalent transfer lists, mostly because it's so much work to follow what players are going for. So even having a slight idea of the price range helps the newer and more casual player quite a bit.

Yeah, I think it's accurate enough int he range where most newer and casual users are buying. The 200-400K range.

Not to say that it couldn't be improved.

Cause I'm sure it could.

With SF builds, its just so variant what their secondaries (like OD) might be and that radically changes value. But I think if they had a way of looking at the value of skills like OD, PA etc. for the age/potential/height (and ignore position) it could give a better number which reflected the value of players with a lot of skills, just maybe not really high primaries/DMI, espeically in that SF spot...it also applies for bigs though whose PA/HA/OD/JS/JR/DR are all huge factors in value but not factored. 17 RB with 1s in secondaries is worth nothing whereas 15 RB with 5+ in all the secondaries is wroth a million, 8+ in a coule and you can get 2million etc. on a low salary big but the TPE maight just say 500k LOL regardless of secondaries if primaries are similar.

Yes, yes, a million times yes, did I mention yes?

Although it's still not ideal, Hattrick's TPE matches up based on the main skill, but also includes ranges for secondary skills (and then the most recent changes fuzzied it even more, to have more varied age ranges as well). I don't put a lot of stock in the TPE here because it's just silly.

The only problem in implementing it (well, besides finding someone to do it) is that there are a much greater number of useful secondary skills here. In HT, if you're buying a MF, you might look at passing or defense, or maybe at winger for special cases, and that's really it. Defenders might need some passing, or MF or wing. But to address the three skill donkey big men vs. the really valuable 8+ secondary guys, you'd have to be looking at pretty much 10 skills, and finding parameters that would constitute a valid comparison without needlessly limiting the result set is difficult.