BuzzerBeater Forums

Indeed, if you want to continue to play MtM, remaining unable to defend LI, and love to have guards driving through your defense every game ;)

Last edited by BB-Patrick at 9/22/2013 7:56:49 AM

Hi,

Will the prediction of defense change apply for NTs as well ? Small nations like mine have mainly big men. It is already very difficult to compete against bigger nations so if our opponents can predict our tactic and get a bonus for it, it is gonna be worse...

Thank you

Indeed, if you want to continue to play MtM, remaining unable to defend LI, and love to have guards driving through your defense every game ;)

Just like what happened last season when you assured than with SB changes the situation with LI dominance would have changed, and then the situation didn't change much, right? ;)
The difference will now be that instead of seraching big man with Sb as low as possible, people can start to change guys with 9-10-11 SB now that his weight on salary has been greatly decreased

Interesting, it seems that africans like big men...

But the point i've made still remains. With your guards you're as predictable as i am, don't you ?

Some more things for the future:

- A financial fair-play to avoid having a team against you with three times (random guess by me) your payroll

From the news post

As you know, the global financial crisis is hitting everyone, and we strongly believe that BuzzerBeater teams should be able to run a sustainable franchise. To encourage managers to build a team that can operate within its means, we’re introducing a “fair play” rule into the financial system that gives teams an incentive to keep their salaries in line with that which they earn in in a given week. We’re still fine-tuning the details, but we’ll be introducing this into the game at the start of the next season.

Funny how this can be read two different ways.

Is it going to become more difficult to buy high salary players on the market when your team hasn't got enough revenue?
Judging from the point about only allowing teams from high divisions to buy expensive players, you could argue that this quote is just another change going in that direction. You don't have enough money, the game doesn't let you buy players who would ruin your club. Safety net sort of thing.


Then you could read it another way. If you remember last year there was another increase in player salaries floor. You had to be spending at least a certain amount on player salaries. So this could be another penalty for managers who 'fail' to spend as player salaries the money they earn each weak.

I've always said the player salaries floor is tackling the problem from the wrong end. The penalty for a team underspending should really come directly from attendance and merchandise. And of course that means if a team manages to have a good playoffs run with a cheap team, the fans don't get as mad as if the lack of spending made then non-competitive.

Player salarie floor is flawed because it doesn't take staff expenditure and other costs and investments into account. It doesn't take team success into account. The stated goal is to ensure teams are competitive, then it should not punish teams who are competitive yet manage to have a low salary roster.