BuzzerBeater Forums

I laughed when i read this

This is a point where I somehow agree with Pin

*sorry Pini*

yer look, i think its a good thinking outside the square kind of idea. so you get a ball for that. But i think its trying to use a sledge hammer to crack a walnut.

I do kind of like the idea of hiding potential, but then that would TOTALLY stuff up the transfer market.
I know people whinge about low potential players. But i was just recently bidding on a guy with 6th-man potential. OK so im in Div III but im 10-0 and my starting SF is injured. point being is that a) Somebody trained this guy and b) i was prepared to buy him.
Ironically, so was someone else, because they outbid me.

fact is ive used star and starter potential players in the past, because there is no pressure to constantly train them. They have reached their cap, so now they become the player that i dont care about training minutes for.

So, what im saying is, is that i feel that there actually is a valid place for these kinds of potential players.
yoda hit the nail on the head with the dispersion stats. I actually think the problem is the salary of the players. why have a 19 year old MVP PF with atrocious rebounding. its just not cricket.

anyways, good ideas, but too much change for me. think smaller :)

If he's been training him for 5 seasons, then obviously he is doing something wrong.
So you chose not to train your great draftees. I rest my case...

He was a great draftee but at 6'7" with more inside skills than outside he wasn't for me training SGs. Do you really win this case just because I don't totally change my entire team around get rid of all my old big guys and replace them with young ones and stop training all my established guards just because I draft someone great but totally unsuitable for my current plans?

In another season I drafted a brilliant high $ player who was perfect except for the minor fact that he was a 6'6" PG with atrocious JS. Should I have spent an entire season training JS just to get him to the starting line by age 19 and then watch him train very slowly ever after?

Last edited by yodabig at 12/8/2011 8:27:47 AM

Who cares about winning the case? I just don't see the point on dragging this any longer. I understand now that you want the perfect trainee, whenever it suits you. You have drafted some great trainees and chose not to train them.

totally change my entire team around get rid of all my old big guys and replace them with young ones and stop training all my established guards just because I draft someone great but totally unsuitable for my current plans?

Yes, if you want to train your own trainee, it means you have to get rid of the old training plan and suit your own draftees needs.

i really like these kind of ideas coming forwards. Quite a few points have been raised against the ideas here but i think there is a lot of concern about new players and how the transfer market will be affected and other such things, which i dont think is really founded on any logic or evidence - and when i look through it, it just boils down to established managers and teams not wanting to change and adapt to new ideas - whether these ideas are truly better or not!

I think more elements of randomness would be good. More hidden abilities /less transparent views of players skills until time/money has been spent to identify them / different rates of training etc - all good stuff in my opinion.

these hidden skills could be described or explained by personality or physical traits. whether they affect the speed of training, or provide a modifier to one or more skills in a game, or to your team as a whole, or in certain situations... the possibilities are endless and exciting with imagination.

some ideas to illustrate what i mean:
Ambidextrous - would mean a player gets some bonuses to his skills like passing and shooting around the basket.
Athletic - bonuses to rebounding
Flair - the fans love the player and buy more merchandise, may be susceptible to more turnovers/missed shots
Quick learner - small bonus to training speed (could be subdivided into certain skills)
Agile (feet) - lower % chance of travelling, bonus to defence, particularly ID
Agile (hands) - lower % chance of turnover, bonus to defence, particularly OD
Leader - when on the court bonus to teams skill checks in the game when the team is down by >10 points

or a dude with high JS and JR is a good three point shooter

a dude with high handling and passing makes few to

a dude with high driving travels less

such thing like flair and leader might be implemented but please nothing which is also reflected in skills, also it should have disadvantages too. Cause when they got skill bonus without getting paid for, it is weird and making specialities necessary to some builds, besides starting skill won't help much too.

And it is not only fight against change at all, cause you shouldn't change just for the change in my eyes you should do it for improve. I don't like such argument, who just attack the other side.

Last edited by CrazyEye at 12/9/2011 4:56:48 AM

The game is ment to be based on player skills. If you add specialitys to them and make more things hidden and random, you create a mess. Where noone understand what was the reason behind win/loss. The game is already pretty complicated to new users. Old users will always adapt to any change, but these changes do not make the game better. It just makes the game really random. It will become a scouting frenzy, where everyone is mostly in the dark (even about info on your own team).
Ofcourse the older users, who already are familiar with the system, might handle the scouting frenzy (as there is no other good BB-management game). But the new users, who already struggle at the start of their careers without some proper mentoring, will rather quit than start to calculate all the different little additions to training speed, game performance etc.
This change is not good for the game. It would basically destroy the fundamentals of the game.
Edit: I just googled around a bit. When I started playing BB, there was another basketball manager game. I read it's user manual and surprise surprise a lot of the things suggested in the suggestion boards are in that game. I will not say the name, but I'm sure everyone can google it. Go play that game! I remembered looking at one my friends teams and saw it's crap with all the "set tactics by quarter" etc things. Perhaps it suits your needs better. GL.

Last edited by Kukoc at 12/9/2011 5:52:00 AM

Yeah, so why not leave it up to the manager to decide what he wants to know and how much he´ll pay for knowing it by making scouting points the key there?

i dont think a mess would be created but i agree it would be harder to "understand" the mechanics of the game and how precisely the probabilities work and so forth.

I guess i am in the minority but i think it spoils it a bit when people set out to quantify everything and all the interrelationships. Sure, a guide to it all is great and necessary for new managers - but the more that is revealed and is predictable the more i think some of the "magic" is lost.

And ok if personality, or more physical traits are introduced it would change managers views of what a "perfect" PG/SG/SF/PF/C whatever might look like and there would be no consensus, and even if there were a techinically correct answer given the match engine then the managers dont need to know it - the fun is experimenting and having the discussions privately and on the forums.

i agree that changes that make things more obscure, or reveal new things about players would have to be introduced carefully.

i havent looked in a couple years but im only aware of one other bball sim game but this one doesnt have personality/physical traits or anything that the other user posted to start this thread off. However, the fundamental idea isnt original (football management pc games and no doubt other online games utilise traits and things) but i just tried to apply this in an original way to this game and get some feedback. I apologise if my idea has already been introduced on another online basketball game in a similar way. (I will google later when i have some more time!)

i dont think that these traits need to have a plus and a minus to them, but if it was necessary in the interests of balance or whatever else then of course this would work too

i must admit i dont really know what new users expect when they start managing their own team ... but i think every manager would be different. Perhaps some would be scared off by less transparency of potential, or the need to scout, or having these hidden traits, or whatever. But i think some would see it as something exciting to learn about over time and experiment with.
If i were a new manager again and i was just told by a mentor "the best way to achieve x is to do y or z" then i would have missed out on a lot of fun during my time here. I might not have stayed.
As it happens i learned things by forum research, asking questions of other England managers, experimentation and trial and error. Im still learning now and ive been playing, i dunno 2 years? i would be more excited if there were more unknowns for each of my players.

Im a bit disappointed that there havent been any responses that have been really enthusiastic and trying to turn any negatives that others come up with into positives, or suggesting some different traits/characteristics.

Its a really nice idea - at least to discuss and let our imaginations free for now! :)