BuzzerBeater Forums

In a thread I started to discuss the new FA standards, the conversation got nasty. Marin requested:

Feel free to continue your discussion here, I will not close the thread, but will not participate either. If anyone else wants to have a more mature, constructive and meaningful discussion in a new thread in this forum, please make a new thread.

So I hope the conversation here will be civil, and address:

1. the apparent reduction in FA-eligible players, especially young highly promising players (based on quite a few examples).
2. how this hurts (or not) the lower- and mid-level teams, where incidentally there are the most managers.
3. how this inflationary economy hurts (or not) everybody at all levels.
4. Marin's desire to reward managers who train, and how to do that without crushing everybody else.

Fair enough?

Fair enough. I welcome this thread and will try to contribute to the best of my ability. If you have direct and specific questions about these points/issues, feel free to ask them.

I have compiled a couple of thoughts on your points:

1. The FA reduction is intentional. A high number of FAs (even those young and promising ones) indirectly hurts the efforts of the managers that focus on training (through reduced player prices on the market). Training is a key part of BB and its value was undermined by the past FA rules.

2. The effect of the FA rule changes is not as drastic as it seems. We have not experienced extreme price rises so far this season and I don't believe we will in the future. Low and mid level teams are therefore only mildly affected, if at all, especially comparing to high level teams. The theory that low and mid level teams need to carry the bulk of the changes effects still needs to be proven.

3. Inflation of player prices directly motivates training, which is a good thing in my book. So, the only teams that have been "hurt" are the ones that don't train. I don't believe a long term strategy which does not involve training should be awarded in BB. Possible: yes, easy: no.

4. It is not my intention to crush anyone. This is a small shift of importance toward training. Nothing too drastic in the grand scheme of things.

@brambauti: The problem with releasing too many 18 and 19 year olds is the devaluation of the draft (which is the primary source of such players). Free agents like the one you mentioned (hall of famer, TSP 54) would directly demotivate people from investing in scouting (why scout when all you need to do is wait for a suitable FA to appear?). So, only a very small number of young players should be released via FA and those are high potential / very high TSP guys, because they were unrealistically expensive. Therefore, using the FA as a tool to bring down prices of those players is a nice solution. Lower TSP or lower potential players need not be saved since their prices aren't that high to begin with.

Not sure what you hope to achieve with this, mate. I thought everything is clear by now, but you're not gonna get anything that hasn't been already said from the staff.

1. The actual reduction of trainable players hurts training. That is an incontrovertible fact. Fewer trainable players compared to a season ago means less chance for people who wants to pick up a trainee and means higher prices for trainees: if 21yo cost more, then so will 20yo and 19yo down the line. 18yo-20yo Free Agents are so few that it's not even worth mentioning FA for them (54 TSP 18yo HoF are still retiring...who are we kidding?). We should call this change: "No FA anymore, except for a few supposed elite players".

2. When prices increase, the teams who suffer the most are the ones with a limited economy, so mainly those in lower leagues and/or with small arenas and/or fewer salary efficient players. Lower level teams and younger teams are hurt much more than older, top level teams. As it becomes harder for them to acquire talent within a reasonable timeframe, they will either leave the game or they will just take longer to challenge higher level teams.

3. It doesn't hurt everybody at all levels. Some people are sitting on millions and millions worth of players and it's obviously not lower level and new teams. To catch up now what they want you to do, is save, save, save or tank, tank, tank, for several seasons spend more money, probably millions, on the fewer top talent trainable players, train them and maybe in 6 seasons you'll be able to challenge the guys who can flip a $2m into a $1.9m player across their lineup.

4. If they wanted to reward training, it would seem completely logical to change and improve training. And I don't mean the single marginal change they've introduced and which nobody uses unless in a pinch. For all the talk about training here, training there, training is one of the very few aspects of the game which has not been touched (as far as we know). Instead of improving the parts that we want to strengthen, the long term vision seem to be destroying other parts of the game so that only one remains.


Last edited by Lemonshine at 6/13/2015 8:04:48 PM

Things actually became clearer to me in Marin's post in this thread. Although I understand the rationale of the changes, I still feel its effects even if I train players. I am having a harder time completing my roster and replacing my older players.

1. Marin reduced the amount of trainable players so that teams will focus more on the draft. From experience (investing 4 points/week and using it all in my first few seasons), there is an average of about 8 good players in the draft so obtaining one is easy as long as you invest. Although 18 year old A+ skill A+ potential is of course rare.

2. Yes, teams from lower leagues may suffer, but it all evens out since your opponents are also from the same league. So either all of you suffer or none of you suffer. Either way, it does not affect your chances of promoting. If I remember correctly the BB's focus in designing the game is to make league games competitive.

3. That is a reasonable strategy. However, I've seen teams win it through other means. Another strategy is spending cash immediately on older players and hope they can carry the team to a championship. I've seen teams do both strategies and be successful.

4. Try to post in the suggestion forums on how to improve training. Maybe you can help. :)

From Marin:
“1. The FA reduction is intentional.” Yes, I think we all realize that now.
“2. The effect of the FA rule changes is not as drastic as it seems.” I agree … and hope to God we are both right, since I see the direction of the change as negative.
“3. Inflation of player prices directly motivates training, which is a good thing in my book.” Yes, I think we all see that, too. Of course, making training less expensive and more logical would also have motivated training without staining the rest of the game so badly. Making training less expensive and more logical would be a rising tide that lifts all ships. You don’t get a chance to fundamentally improve the game like that very often, so I hope this one has not passed us by.
“4. … Nothing too drastic in the grand scheme of things.” I agree. It is the direction the game is taking that worries me.

From Lemonshine:
“1. The actual reduction of trainable players hurts training.” I agree. The draft cannot come close to providing enough trainable players, not even close. And new teams are not gifted with hardly any.
“2. When prices increase, the teams who suffer the most are the ones with a limited economy, so mainly those in lower leagues and/or with small arenas and/or fewer salary efficient players.” Yes, those of us in the lower- and mid-level leagues already know that the change damaged us the most. Why they would want to disadvantage the levels where there are the most managers, and where many of the managers are not yet hooked on BB, escapes me.
“3. It doesn't hurt everybody at all levels.” Right. As you point out, hoarders at the upper levels will do just fine, though why they would want to reward those people escapes me.
“4. If they wanted to reward training, it would seem completely logical to change and improve training.” Yes, I said much the same thing in discussing Marin’s point number three.

So, strangely enough I agree with all 4 of Marin’s points and all 4 of Lemonshine’s points.

Over the past few weeks, I observed the players going on the free agency and I can say that all those players draw interest with high market value. Before the change, there were some bad players with high salary on the free agency who were sold for very low prices, I couldn't see any of those. This is a good and confirmed part of the changes.

The other thing is the retirement process and I believe, apart from Marin, no one knows enough to talk about it. If you complain about the lack of young talented players going to free agency, there were none before. If you complain about not being able to fill your roster with old cheap players, I believe it's a good thing. What we still need to judge the changes is to evaluate players who get retired in terms of TSP.

Last edited by Nico4nicolas at 6/14/2015 4:09:17 AM

Oops, you're right. The amount of trainable players actually increased. It should be the number of trainable players did not increase as much as Lemonshine hoped it would.

1. Marin reduced the amount of trainable players

There has been no such reduction.

QUOTE from Marin: "1. The FA reduction is intentional." So not only DID he reduce the FA's, it was intentional.

The good thing with FA is that it can be altered every season. If Marin see or is convinced by logical arguments that there should be more FA, he can expand the net and saves more players. FA net has been changed in the past, to be bigger or smaller.

The change has barely happened and already we are talking about reversing it.