BuzzerBeater Forums

In the game engine, your SG (for example) will no longer be restricted to guarding an opposing SG in a man-to-man defense. In other words, your position in the offense will not have to match your position in the defense.

I wonder if defense will start switching (when screens are set) or if it 'll be about setting orders.
for example:
Player x starting point guard
Player x defending shooting guard

The way it is written I guess it's the second wich BB's plan to implement. Will be interesting.

I hope for the second, partially because it would benefit me I think.

I can imagine third option - coach will adapt and change defensive assignements as he is supposed to do with tactics now.

BTW 1-3-1 is not considered to be a zone, is it? As there are going to be some changes in formulas for zone defenses.

If the principle is horrible

That's assuming it's horrible, which it is not.

What is supposed to bring to the game except limiting different approaches to the game? I would like to know, I still don't know what is it good for?!

It should be easy to figure out the ratio players from country A belonging to active teams / active teams of country A .
Say Japan got 10 active teams, and there are 200 japanese players spread around the world, we have a 20 to 1 ratio. Now say we got 5000 italian active teams and 150 000 italian players , we end up with a 30 to 1 ratio. I'd say it would be harder for japanese teams to fill their roster with their country boys than for the italians teams. I guess to make it fair, japanese team should get a higher bonus than italian teams when using home country guys.

Bigger markets probably mean higher number of teams getting inactive. So even if more draftees are generated in bigger countries not all of them end up to be available to the world market.
It is easier to make money in smaller countries than in big ones. As mentionned before, starting in DI or DII allows a faster team development than starting in DVI. Competitiveness could be lower in smaller countries too. Meaning it is easier to stay at the top, hence being able to generate large income with teams not as great as top teams from bigger countries. Having a competitive roster without crushing the opposition increases the feeling of competition, and it means being able to save more cash. Then at some point with all those savings, it is possible to afford to build a roster with more top foreign players than other teams and compete in BBBs. That way elite teams from small countries could "steal" top players /draftees and forcing team from bigger country to either drop in quality cause they want to use home country players, or forcing them to buy foreign players which balance every thing.

All in all I fail to see how the bonus to home country player could be a bad idea when considering the big picture.

@BB-Charles : Early warning was probably the best course of action. People won't be able to say they did not have time to argue or they could not make preparation to be ready to handle the changes. Just add some pressure : screwing implementation will generate alot more noise.

What's so horrible, and how is it horrible?

edit - i mean, based on this assumption that is causing people to jump to conclusions.

First I refer to my original post: (72142.70)

The motivation for introducing this "foreign player tax" is to making good better use of player nationalities (the good/better typo is from the news btw). This is a pretty weak motivation to introduce something that will limit the playability for most teams. You try to solve a non existing problem and limit the game as a consequence.

In this thread another motivation has been mentioned. Namely, that their is an unfair competition today, where top teams from small leagues get a benefit in the BBB because they have better economy and can use this to buy all top players. If this is the case, and it is seen as a problem, the problem should of course be fixed at the where it is created, i.e. income for top teams in minor leagues should be decreased. Trying to solve a problem by targeting the symptons than the real problem is almost always a horrible solution.

Please don't explain it by Hattrick not everyone is playing that game:)

Why? That's like communism the goverment would say you what you can and what you can't. Since the freedom of choice of starategy is doing no harm (agree?) I don't see why limit the options.

I think you should have waited for a couple of weeks with a bombshell like this: managers fear they are going to be hit where it hurts most: in their wallet. And because of that nobody is paying attention to the goodies that will come into effect in a couple of days... There have been over 10 post in 15 minutes since your post, and none is in reaction to your post.

This is a little bit off topic, but it seems like a lot of this debate is coming from speculation about the details of this system. We tried very hard to announce very far in advance that this would be happening in order to minimize the impact on teams who decide to adjust their long-term strategy as a result and in order to minimize the impact on the transfer market.

However, we've also made a number of changes this offseason that we really did want to make sure were given proper attention, and we really did not want to spend a lot of time in what was already going to be a long news post focusing on the details of a system for two seasons from now.

Do you think it was a mistake to announce something like this without details? What would have been a better option?

I think announcing in advance is a must since different managers seek different strategies and value things differently.

I think it would be great to add some reasoning why such a change should be implemented. Cause i don't see any good.

For the record - I'm not in a position to be trapped by this (if the impact would be that horrible) and I'm willing to help NT of my country. Still don't see how this should help Buzzerbeater.

National team problems shouldn't influence team competitions. NT managers who care usually find their way for best prospects to be trained. An again if the prospect is good, wise manager would train him no matter his nationality. Of course if you would have to choose between tow identical players majority of managers would prefer the player from their country. But i doubt you can say good prospects are neglected. You should rather improve quality or density of useful (not necessary top) prospects or/and change the balance among divison pools and probably change ratings a bit. Best rating player (any A) should not be out of question for training - and I'm not picky as I'm pretty much on start of my road.

Do you think it was a mistake to announce something like this without details? What would have been a better option?

I honestly don't think the details will help you, but please surprise me.

Furthermore two seasons in advance without knowing the details is not that far in advance. My time is probably not that different from any other small league team. Out of my top 8 players I only have to Swedes, whereof one is being trained in order to be sold in the near future. In other words I know now that I should probably try to trade almost my entire team within a couple of seasons.

There are several problems with this and I will just mention three (all related).

First, I would guess that there are quite a few managers that just like me look at the trannsfer as something quit booring, but needed. To force people to spend extra time on the transfer market just because they have to adapt to a sudden rule change is not ideal (even though it might be needed in some cases).

Secondly, on long term it means that teams from small countries will have a very limited market to find my ideal players on. This wll have the consequence that time spent on the transfer becomes more important than actual "team building", making the game more HT-like (i.e. more "mechanical" rather than "intellectual").

Finally, a big part of a longterm game like BB is that you build up "relations" to your players. If you are forced to trade players too often this emotional bond to your team will vanish.

It's difficult to say, I'm not sure we have enough information to make that call. Speculation is always likely to be the result from lack of clarity. Is that necessarily damaging or can it even be healthy? Well, it depends...

Honestly, I'm not trying to be funny. Perhaps, given the reaction, you could weigh up the pros and cons of revealing the proposed season 10 changes so that a debate can take place. If you do not want to debate it, you could make a statement anyway (and then batten down the hatches).

But I wouldn't get too worked up about what essentially is two camps with differing views on how the game should develop having a new bone to fight over.

This is a little bit off topic, but it seems like a lot of this debate is coming from speculation about the details of this system. We tried very hard to announce very far in advance that this would be happening in order to minimize the impact on teams who decide to adjust their long-term strategy as a result and in order to minimize the impact on the transfer market.

However, we've also made a number of changes this offseason that we really did want to make sure were given proper attention, and we really did not want to spend a lot of time in what was already going to be a long news post focusing on the details of a system for two seasons from now.

Do you think it was a mistake to announce something like this without details? What would have been a better option?

I am quite surprised at the extent of discussion on this. For 99.9% of teams, it is simply a good thing to know for future development and choices. For Superfly and myself, where the b3 season or pl leagues (still trying to master the princeton offense) is the focus of our season, this is a big change because the rules of the game will now be unequal for us no matter how such a policy is implemented (it is a debate whether the current setup is currently unequal in favour of us). In any case, it is good to allow debate and solicit ideas from those affected (positively or negatively).