BuzzerBeater Forums

Currently there are about eight draftees per season (as far as I remember) that are P.-Allstar or above.

Increasing this number means two things:
1) No (AKA - less) need to invest at scouting points, as the chances becomes even higher to get them just by luck.

2) When increasing the amount of good players, it means that what once had been exceptionaly great is now just common (generally speaking).
And then one will ask more of the MVP players instead current P.-Allstar player...

look at the title, I'm not asking for p. allstars and up to get increased, I'm asking for stars and all stars. So.......I'd like a allstar rather than a stupid bench guy.

It is not really important what is the level you set/asked.
The answer is the same.

There are enough players that you can draft with this skill.
Raising this bar has the same affects written before.

Hence, this is not a suggestion that I support.

There are around 18 player with a potential of Star or higher in a draft. More than one third of the draft !
It means that even a blind has great chance to pick one of them in one of his three picks.

It is not as if the NBA draft are all "success".
About a third of the draft peeks (and actually much less) will have a career on the NBA.
Not to mention being a "Star" there.

Quite the opposite.
The amount of players that are what one will call Superstars (of their division) are higher than in the NBA.

As already written - increasing the amount of good players will mean that there will be no reason to invest in the draft.

I bet that anyone who support this bad suggestion does not invest, almost at all, in scouting points.

Last edited by Pini פיני at 8/14/2012 3:28:00 AM

ok what about thesuggestion at the bottom of my post about having at least 1 good player in your starting roster? is that a good one, I feel bad for those newbies who have 6th men and benchwarmers as a "Good young talented " guy to start with your team? I say at least 1 guy! of all star + potential and 4k plus salary.....do you like that one?

ok what about thesuggestion at the bottom of my post about having at least 1 good player in your starting roster? is that a good one, I feel bad for those newbies who have 6th men and benchwarmers as a "Good young talented " guy to start with your team? I say at least 1 guy! of all star + potential and 4k plus salary.....do you like that one?

1) In general, I think that a user that joins the game should be competitive from the start.
What does it means in terms of players, etc. is arguable.
Currently a user who joins the game (not in a micro-nation) gets enough money to buy those types of players you wrote.

2) I even support something stronger than that;
In the NBA a new team gets to choose players from any team with some limitations - franchise cannot be chosen, a maximum of players from a single team, etc.

The same needs to apply here with some changes.
When being promoted (or when starting a new team / joining this game), you will be part of this process.

The skills will not be shown except what you can already examine.

For every player you choose, the other team gets to choose from your roster a player.

There will be the same rules of franchise player/s and a maximum of a single player from a team that one can choose.

All of the players of a relegated team can be taken by that promoted team. In turn, they will choose players from the division they are being relegated into (and after the process done by the promoted one).

As currently users just sell their best players when off-season starts for them, the definition could be changed to include money that each team received for selling a player during last X weeks, in case a player with this value had not been bought at this time.

This will also assist making this game a more competitive one.

3) A simpler version is to take the average revenue (of all teams during all season long) at the division one is promoted into, and defined it as a bonus, in a sense that as long as the promoted team's revenue is lower than that, you will get (during its first season at that division) the delta as a bonus.

Last edited by Pini פיני at 8/14/2012 4:57:23 AM

ah I see what your saying, an expansion draft, good idea cause these are the problems newbies have:

1. They buy a MVP potential guy that has terrible skills and is 20+ years old thinking they can train them. Or they try to sell those 1k turds that are useless and no one buys them. At first I read the manual and then my mentor said to just fire them as they won't bring in any cash and they could potentially give you a bad starting week (i.e. You pay them before they get fired) So there's problem #1 in money management

2. They buy a 200k guy who isn't even supposed to be in a last division team. He'll bankrupt a team. That'll be sad. A new guy in my Country who brags bought a 77k C who ended up getting fired and was young, that's what I';m saying, buying monsters are a bad way......could've done for D3 or something.

3. They use all their starting cash on buying oldies. (Which I did) They are good for 1 season, but they crash down a season later. So if you say buying 5 great 10k guys before building your arena......you're crazy. If you want to buy someone with your starting cash, make sure they're 27 and younger.

those are problems that can be solved doing a expansion draft, if that's what you mean? I say also make sure that they don't exceed a certain salary, like in my D5 league, average salary is 15k-20k (yes my league is very competitive) so our cap should be a 25ker or at least a 30ker....but anyways maybe a expansion draft would be good? I like it though.....(if that is what you mean?)

I totally agree with this, each new team should be given one "decent" trainee to begin with, probably an 18 year old $4,000 salary allstar would be fine. Instead we have the situation where most teams get 19 year old $3,000 6th men but the occasional team gets an 18 year old $6,000 superstar. Trust me as an U21 coach I have looked at hundreds of teams to see their starting players and the current situalion is totally unbalancing and unfair.