BuzzerBeater Forums

I really, really dislike this system.

Two simple measures will probably improve the system significantly:

(1) Being able to invest in 'Recruitment', which will basically result in getting you staff normally distributed around a certain level of skill with a standard deviation of 0.66 levels. Example:

40k per week = level 9
20k per week = level 6
10k per week = level 3
0k per week = level 1

You can retain a flavor of the current system by having people who have the same investment level pull identical staff each week, just like they do like now. Maybe just shuffle the name for realism

(2) Lock staff level for 1 season -- just make staff retain their level for 14 weeks before before a chance that they might loose skill appears.


Last edited by GM-kozlodoev at 5/12/2008 8:25:50 AM

And at the moment, the optimal speed is level 8 or whatever the best available trainer is.

Personally, I think these reductions in trainer level are put in place to add a bit of reistance to the top or richest teams. Fair enough, I say. I would like a level 10 trainer all the time as well, but if that's not the way it happens, then I will deal with it. I have the same trainer that you do, and last week I had three players pop out of the seven I trained, even though it was the first week I trained that skill ( pressure).

ps- Smoked Gouda? I love that one...

Last edited by somdetsfinest at 5/12/2008 8:27:56 AM

Either of those solutions would be an upgrade.

its not harming the top teams... if your roster has 6-7k players (i know salary aint the be all and end all but bear with me) then you improve them at the same speed as a team that has 12-15k players how will the lesser team close the gap?

oh and on the training side i decided to do a team training last week (one to one) 9 pops over 9 players.... clearly i wont be expecting anything this week!

Smoked Gouda you say.....

Is Gachai a cheese?

Last edited by Superfly Guy at 5/12/2008 8:38:08 AM

Either of those solutions would be an upgrade.

I was thinking about both at the same time.

Since I have no supporter at this point, feel free to bring them up in the federation instead of me.

Maybe not harming but acting as resistance.

Gachai is a village of about 200 people in rural northeastern Thailand.

Both at the same time or either one would be fine.
There really are many solutions that work better than this one. I can understand that the BBs are waiting to figure out the best one possible, but this current system right now just does not work IMO.

Both at the same time or either one would be fine.
There really are many solutions that work better than this one. I can understand that the BBs are waiting to figure out the best one possible, but this current system right now just does not work IMO.

For my part, I prefer solutions that are simple yet functional. In addition, the staff system should assure no manager is getting unfair advantage. I am sure that if there is a better solution (which is probable), someone will come up with it

Back to the trainer drops,

There was a lvl 9 trainer (Fermin Rosales), I think a couple of week back. If your lvl 10 has dropped to 9, wouldn't it make sense to switch trainers until the next lvl 10 comes along to prevent the risk of the trainer level dropping again (Considering the managers REALLY place importance on training)? I know I did.

By not changing there, you're basically saving up a week's wages against the risk of a skill drop before the next lvl 10 hits the market.

i think we all feel the staff system isn't really broken, but really isn't all that interesting. you basically have to just keep checking to make sure your trainer hasn't dropped and buy a new one when you can.. everyone gets the same chance to buy a new one.. so really it just is an added fixed cost to everyone, which i suppose means its a lower opportunity cost for higher level teams, which drives the separation larger in that way... and gives an advantage to more attentive owners.

anyway.. all in all I think all the BBs agree the current system is boring. We have had some long standing ideas of having coaches integrate into the GE so that a particular coach will make particular close call tactical decisions reproducibly and so you have to search for a coach whose coaching style matches what you think should be done.

For instance towards the end of the game when you are down there is a question of when you should start fouling, some coaches might want to start fouling sooner than others. Or if you are up by 3 do you foul in order to prevent them from getting off a 3 pointer? etc etc etc

My feeling has been that we haven't got a perfect handle on the end of game logic yet, so adding that sort of thing would confuse that optimization at this point.. but that is the best idea for how to make the staff system more interesting in my mind.