BuzzerBeater Forums

i would suggest a few changes-
firstly the impact of the last game on the upcoming home game should be decreased.many times i have had a good games and then i loose a game and my arena attendance drops by quite a bit.
secondly the fan survey should be a bit more realistic.i mean despite having a really good season if u loose form one of the best teams of the country and the fan survey hits the bottom.
thirdly i would love to see 2-3 zone improved a bit so that i can be used in games atleast to defend the inside focussed offenses.

i wish an addionatial tactic on lineup, I want to select 3 of them

-play bench when team is in advance +20 against rival
-play bench when team is in back -20 against rival
-dont change the game tactic acording to score

they should add them to tactic screen. so we should select one or two of them (three of them is a paradox )

100% on this.

More options on when players should go to the bench (and actually have the GE do what it's asked to do, rather than this "strictly follow depth chart" and sometimes change it).

I'll go with Yoda's format...

(seemingly) easy:
1. Modify LI offence effectiveness
2. Modify 2-3 zone effectiveness
3. Modify effects of Game Shape - Keep it random but a little less... Include long term effects. For example, if a player plays (and trains - see below) more than 120mins a week for several (4+?) weeks, his GS is severely affected and may take longer to normalise. Or if a player plays excellent (definition of excellent needed) minutes for several weeks, his GS can improve even further than proficient.

(seemingly) difficult:
1. Modify training process - There is no reason that a player should only get "training time" by playing in games. Perhaps each player has a default 30mins (for example) training time and in-game time is added to those minutes. I actually play basketball and the times I improve the most are during actual training. It's a time when I can try new things and repeat skills without risking the W.
2. An individualised and deeper approach to tactics. For example, selecting two tactics for a game, a primary and a secondary. Or an option to choose if opponent plays x defensive tactic, we play y offensive tactic. Difficult, I know, but it would be good.
3. New tactics that give more benefits to particular stats.
4. Modifying the GE so that there is an advantage to scouting opponents and learning tactical advantages. Base tactics would need to be less effective and specialised tactics more effective (unless opposing team's tactics trump them). For example, RNG vs 2-3 would be more effective than it already is. LI vs 1-3-1 would be more effective.
5. Somehow make effective the tactics that are seldom used (princeton, LP).

One last thing and I don't know if it would be easy or difficult...

The effectiveness of the PR manager, according to my own experiences and what I've read pretty much everywhere, is somewhat redundant. Either remove the option entirely or make it worthwhile through, perhaps, a possible tactical advantage to get a higher level PR manager.

Looking at buzzer manager, except for player's who were injured at some point in the course of the season, my whole team maintained 8-9 GS. Some were lowly respectable only a few games into the season and a game after the all star break because of obvious reasons. I take notes of my player's minutes every week, not letting them play too much or too little (this comes with personal observation of what worked for me). I looked at the week before that to see if I should make any adjustments. I look at the week before that and before that, noting what GS they had and how minutes they played. If it becomes more random (i think it's not so hard to maintain 8-9 most times), I will frigging hate this game. I happen to do the same thing last season too and buzzer manager tells me a good GS history of all players in my rotation.

Gotta agree on this one
those that keep track of minutes played to insure constant GS
deserve something better than another random decision
taking away some training effectiveness and adding it to
unwanted areas has already limited some personal decisions

What I'd like to see changed is the fact that finishing 5th in the league is more profitable than finishing 4th (unless you get promoted). This makes no sense at all and is discouraging players from giving their best in every game.
In fact, even finishing 6th is probably more profitable since you get 1+1 home games.

And lastly, I think a Salary cap would do this game a world of good. A salary cap will increase competitiveness in the BBB competition and make it more interesting. It can be put high enough so that most of the teams won't be able to reach it. Seeing rosters with 1.5-2 million weekly salary however is ridiculous. This will also get rid of teams that tank for many many seasons, in order to pay these rosters.


p.s. I think we should rename the thread to Wishlist 2.

Last edited by Dodor at 2/2/2012 8:24:27 AM

What I'd like to see changed is the fact that finishing 5th in the league is more profitable than finishing 4th (unless you get promoted). This makes no sense at all and is discouraging players from giving their best in every game.
In fact, even finishing 6th is probably more profitable since you get 1+1 home games.

Very good point here. 5th is also more profitable then finishing 3rd.

Something could be done to completely revamp the playoff distribution income. Such as pool all the revenues from all the games (relegation included) and reward the teams more accordingly. Whatever is done, you shouldn't make more money for hosting a relegation series or finishing 5th then playing on the road in the actual playoffs. It only promotes tanking.

Very good point here. 5th is also more profitable then finishing 3rd.

Something could be done to completely revamp the playoff distribution income. Such as pool all the revenues from all the games (relegation included) and reward the teams more accordingly. Whatever is done, you shouldn't make more money for hosting a relegation series or finishing 5th then playing on the road in the actual playoffs. It only promotes tanking.

Totally agree. The no game-no salary rule is definitely flawed. I mean, what if a team plays away in playoffs? You still get almost no income, and pay full salaries. While 5th place teams pay none at all... BS.

If this rule is to stay, I say let both teams in the playoffs get the full amount of arena income. Teams in playouts can share a single arena income. This way 1-4th will be better off that 5th, and 5th will be better than 6-7th, and everyone will be motivated to finish higher.

Another option will be to get rid of this rule, and everyone pays 2 weeks salary, no arena income in playoffs, just fixed bonuses depending on finishing place.

I dunno, the more I read this, the more things are not being put into perspective. You see, a team with low salary AND a huge arena finishes 5th would not get as much money as he did going into the playoffs. While a high salary team with small arena will "earn more" by saving on not having to pay salaries.

I dunno, the more I read this, the more things are not being put into perspective. You see, a team with low salary AND a huge arena finishes 5th would not get as much money as he did going into the playoffs. While a high salary team with small arena will "earn more" by saving on not having to pay salaries.

Sorry but you're flat out wrong. The 5th place team doesn't have to pay any salary for the week. The 3rd and 4th place teams get only 1/3 rd of the gate for most likely only 1 game and pay full salaries.

No matter what league/level you're in, you're far better off financially finishing 5th than 4th. It's not even debateable. If you find one single league where this wasn't the case, I'll stand corrected. I"m confident that you won't.

I'm a 4th place team, I'm in my league finals so I'm going to get to host 1 playoff game and I still would have been better off financially finishing 5th and paying no salaries for the entire playoffs. Sad but true.