BuzzerBeater Forums

Who said any of this? Is Bronson one-dimensional? He went on sale recently at 300k salary: no one who's any good can really afford his salary. Is Bronson poorly trained? Is Wozz stupid in playing him for the NT?

I think you're fighting a straw man. No one wants the best performers all on one team on the court at one time. The hope is to make the best performers desirable, so that every top team could afford maybe one of them (notice: this is how actual professional sports work).

Are you actually saying that a 800k salary cap team can not afford 300k salary player. What you guys are rooting for is keeping them and not to have to downgrade any other spot. You can even maintain a 500k player you just need to tradeoff strenght from other positions. There is nothing wrong if people opt for having equally strong players at every spot instead of having 2-3 "the best players" and the rest of the team is full on scrubs. As BB's have showed BB players have evolved to be better than their RL counterparts. The actual reason why we can't have Miami Heat type teams here is because "the best players" do not negotiate salarys. You can only change that if you want to completely overhaul this game. Presumably making this game worse.

Are you actually saying that a 800k salary cap team can not afford 300k salary player.

I dunno, i added one 220k center last season, pushing payroll to 900k and have been drowning ever since.

A 300k gaurd makes it very difficult to field a competitive team. 500k left and still no big men? Not easy to pull off. You have to be count on the finals money but that's not certain in the most competitive leagues.

What you guys are rooting for is keeping them and not to have to downgrade any other spot.

Not really saying that at all. If all the players salaries are pushed down some (particularly big men) it would be for all players, not just the few at the top so the D1 teams can gobble them all up. You'd still have to buy these now salary affordable, yet awesome on-court, players that would be very popular on the TL.

In the NBBA teams are making less then 100k/week on average, which gets used for all but 2 finalists to cover the lack of attendance revenue in the 2 offseason weeks.

To me the player pyramid is just missing the top .01% of the best on-court players, that have priced themselves out of usefulness. "I'm sorry Dwight Howard, your high levels of inside skills have priced you out of the market, you're just too poorly trained to be afforded in BB".

"I'm sorry Dwight Howard, your high levels of inside skills have priced you out of the market, you're just too poorly trained to be afforded in BB".

That will be a thing of the past in 5 seasons when you've stockpiled enough cash to go absolutely bananas on your USA rivals :D

Why'd you pick out those 2 quotes from Coco, but ignore this and not repsond:

Now onto the reason why the best performers should be available.

1) better integration between NT and club teams.
2) as a corollary to 1), much less pressure to create farm teams.
3) higher realism (see Brian's point).
4) actual incentive to make use of the higher potentials (no affordable player with HOF potential really needs to be HOF).
5) less incentive to play the horrible divine trick (buy a high potential players for a cup final)

What are the reasons they shouldn't be available?

I'd love to be convinced here. For real, I have no agenda as the current setup really isnt hurting me.

I think we're both taking notes from jbmcrock

I think we're both taking notes from jbmcrock :)

But his is a final explosion...we are building the base to do the same but still have some crumbs left afterwards!

1. You can't retrospectively make the super high salaried players more desirable without causing more damage to the club game than the better integration is worth. From the main game's perspective, a lot of those players were trained dumb. Maybe those around 75% of the maximum salaries of the game will be made more desirable anyway - by the introduction of the Isolation tactic.
2. Farm teams will happen however marginal the benefits are. Some gamers will always adopt power game tactics within game worlds. Having the NT set-up as a sub-game within the main club-based game creates this conflict between the need to train at all costs and the need to train within costs - but it makes for a better gameworld than any other proposed solution, including the proposals here.
3. Poorer playability.
4. Don't agree, you can train Handling and Driving to 20+ levels without adding greatly to salary costs. Potential is measured against skill count, not salaries, so the higher potential players can be the most all-rounded and effective within the game engine. What they haven't been designed to be is merely better at the simple things.
5. Wishful thinking. Again, however marginal the benefits, some gamers will always adopt power game tactics within game worlds. The only way to prevent that is to agree within your community not to do it - and good luck with that!

I'm not going to repeat Elmacca here. But add something to his responce.
4. Higher potentials are ment to be used for all around players, they do not hit their cap that fast thus will not make training secondarys that hard to improve (when some potentials would be at their cap already). I don't think high potentials were ment to be used on training few skills to 20 -> 20+.
5. I guess it's not ment

buy a high potential players for a cup final

it's high salary players. How many of the manager have successfully done this. I've seen one manager trying this for promotion. Failed miserably, why -> those players are hard to move, paying salary even once will eat away your pressious funds. It's a big risk. If you win, then by all means the risk was worth it. If you lose, you will lose a lot. The tradeoff makes this kind of behaviour ok.

Give me an example of a hypothetical well trained player. Unlimited skill points and unlimited potential.

Perhaps JS,OD,PA,IS,RB,ID at 14, everything else lagging 2 skill levels behind.