BuzzerBeater Forums

In case that was the status then scouts would be expandable and pointless, or at least there would be no reason to send a scout to an actual game.
He could just grab the statistics (like you said), a popcorn, and analyze from it...
I think this suggestion could add another interesting abilitiy aspect to the game, and one that does not compromise its assence. But it is not under "must have", it is under nice to have. It is additional feature, and not a required fix.

Why don't you just get off your ass and scout the games yourself rather than try invent a whole new concept of scouts to do work for you?

As others already said it just doesn't make sense for you to know exactly what your opponents skills are. This is a management game. The smart managers will be able to predict what the skills are from analysing box scores and team/player ratings. If you want to just log in and press a button and have it all done for you then perhaps this is not the game for you. There is no fun when everyone knows exactly what the skills are of their opponents as tactics become less relevant.

Veteran user just keep doing the same things and will rarely think about changing something that he is well aware of.
A new user, will be a refreshing way of thought.
Maybe he will be wrong about some or most of the things, but he will definately comes with a clean and new perspective.
And this is true to all things and not just to the narrow world of BB.

Ever heard of the saying that if it ain't broke don't fix it? Theres nothing wrong with the current system so there is no real enhancements gained here. What you propose here is a whole new concept change alltogether and will take our BBs time to change and implement.

There is nothing wrong with this and as "refreshing" as your thoughts are, it is not adding any additional value to this game. In fact, it will take away many of the fundamental values of this game if everyone knows what everyone players skills are and makes tactics less relevant.

In case that was the status then scouts would be expandable and pointless, or at least there would be no reason to send a scout to an actual game.
He could just grab the statistics (like you said), a popcorn, and analyze from it...
I think this suggestion could add another interesting abilitiy aspect to the game, and one that does not compromise its assence. But it is not under "must have", it is under nice to have. It is additional feature, and not a required fix.

It's not only the stats, they actually watch the game.
And you can do it too by yourself (game viewers do work pretty well).

You want life easier, less challenging, less entertaining...

So, why don't you suggest the other way around?

You could suggest that giving the users an option to choose and buy players (for example) is too much, and they should be drafted without seeing any stats.

You could argue that the user should not be able to make his own lineup, and the coach will decide upon his reasoning, because, hey, why making life easier? no???

This suggestion that I brang here stands by its own.
You are getting one thing but giving another.
Like you can scout in the draft and pay for that (again, why allow the draft scouting? Isn't it not challenging?), the same is suggested here.
Paying an amount of money for a very little bit of information.

So, why don't you suggest the other way around?

You could suggest that giving the users an option to choose and buy players (for example) is too much, and they should be drafted without seeing any stats.

Why that? In real life, teams do buy and sell players. Teams do scout draftees.
What you don't have in real life, is a scout that comes to you before a game and tells you "I've discovered that Omri Casspi is a very good shooter and a good rebounder". Wow!
Scouts don't tell you how a player in your league is good at what.
Both in real life and in this game, I perfectly know who my opponent's good shooter, legendary passer, atrocious rebounders are.

You could argue that the user should not be able to make his own lineup, and the coach will decide upon his reasoning, because, hey, why making life easier? no???

It's the other way round: having to choose the line-up ADDS complexity to the game.

This suggestion that I brang here stands by its own.
You are getting one thing but giving another.
Like you can scout in the draft and pay for that (again, why allow the draft scouting? Isn't it not challenging?), the same is suggested here.
Paying an amount of money for a very little bit of information.

Because in real life teams pay scouts to tell them what draftees are good at and how.
And because in BB, instead, there is no other way you can get an insight on draftees (simply because BB-NCAA games or similar stuff don't exist).



Last edited by Stavrogin at 10/26/2011 5:32:37 PM

Scouts don't tell you how a player in your league is good at what.

Not only that they tell how good each player is, they also point to the exact moves that he good at, and where his weaknesses are.

It's the other way round: having to choose the line-up ADDS complexity to the game.

Just the same with this "enhanced scouting abilities", the user should decide how much money he will invest in a small partion of information regarding his opponent.
It is exactly like the draft scouters! The user chooses amount of money to invest for getting better information about players he can draft.

Because in real life teams pay scouts to tell them what draftees are good at and how.

I got it... scouts can tell all about a draftee, but about a player the same information (kind of) they just can tell, beacuse it is just a totaly different thing. [You understand that it sounds a little bit absurd].

And because in BB, instead, there is no other way you can get an insight on draftees (simply because BB-NCAA games or similar stuff don't exist).

There are three levels of scouting. Why after you get the statistics you don't ask to prevent the last level?
The statistics of a game they give is as representive as a whole season. Otherwise, it would just not give anything.

Summarizing;
Like a scout can scout information about draftees, the scouts of the opponent can do the same.
Exactly like a scouter for the draft candidate is being paid for a small bit of information, so can the scouter for the opponent.
This gives the same complexity as scouting for the draft.

Scouts don't tell you how a player in your league is good at what.

Not only that they tell how good each player is, they also point to the exact moves that he good at, and where his weaknesses are.

I like how you skipped the most important part of this quote: "Both in real life and in this game, I know who my opponent's good shooter, legendary passer, atrocious rebounders are".
I meant exactly that: scouts are useless if all you want from them is a classification of the players' skills.
It's just a way to be able to not commit to paying attention to your league, and short-cut it by paying.

It's the other way round: having to choose the line-up ADDS complexity to the game.

Just the same with this "enhanced scouting abilities", the user should decide how much money he will invest in a small partion of information regarding his opponent.
It is exactly like the draft scouters! The user chooses amount of money to invest for getting better information about players he can draft.

No, it just gives you a chance to have someone tell you what you can see with your eyes. It's completely different to the line-up example.

Because in real life teams pay scouts to tell them what draftees are good at and how.

I got it... scouts can tell all about a draftee, but about a player the same information (kind of) they just can tell, beacuse it is just a totaly different thing. [You understand that it sounds a little bit absurd].

Again... they can indeed tell the same information, of course they can. But in the case of draftees is fundamental information, in the case of opponents is just useless!
Seriously, you don't know that Kende Sallai is a very good rebounder? Do you need to pay someone to tell that to you?

And because in BB, instead, there is no other way you can get an insight on draftees (simply because BB-NCAA games or similar stuff don't exist).

There are three levels of scouting. Why after you get the statistics you don't ask to prevent the last level?
The statistics of a game they give is as representive as a whole season. Otherwise, it would just not give anything.

Summarizing;
Like a scout can scout information about draftees, the scouts of the opponent can do the same.
Exactly like a scouter for the draft candidate is being paid for a small bit of information, so can the scouter for the opponent.
This gives the same complexity as scouting for the draft.

Again, again, again: you can't watch games of draftees, whereas you can watch games of opponents. There lies the difference.
There is a point in paying someone to tell what you cannot understand otherwise.
There is not a point in paying someone to tell what you can see on your own (well, there is a point: laziness).


Last edited by Stavrogin at 10/26/2011 7:00:18 PM

This game is by no means simple. Plus, skills are hidden for a reason, and there are other methods of scouting the opponents besides knowing the skills of the players. I don't think this part of the game needs any changes currently.

What I agree about (from the start) is that this suggestion is not a top priority.
But, as I wrote somewhere, it is not that available to scout a player by your own.

Currently, and due to other definition of the game, the MVP of a team may come seconds before playoff begins.
You cannot get enough information from his stats, as they where made on a different league.
A player who was a great offence player (Morisson) may be very bad at that when coming from college into the "bigs" league (NBA).

In addition, what I suggested is that you may scout for a limited of information per week.
And to that I've added that it will cost you.
It adds possibilities and complexity to the game - now you'll need to decide does this information worth it? Do you want to pay money for getting this information or you preffer using the money for other targets in the game.

I think the Morrison example is the perfect argument against your suggestion.

Scouts saw him play in college and - based on what they saw - thought that he was great.
That's a mistake that exposes bad scouting.
You basically want to eliminate the possibility to make mistakes, i.e. the possibility of proving that one is better than others at BB management because he doesn't make mistakes.

Imagine if the guys who scouted Morrison could read his ACTUAL skills list. He probably would have gone undrafted.

Same goes for season games.
You follow your league, you get an assessment of your opponents. "An assessment" is very different from "the reality", you can nail it (and in some cases it's very easy) or you can fail (because it can be tricky).

I don't like it and i won't take part in this discussion. I just want to point that this would spoil NT competitions a lot. You just proposed new form of farms to be added. At least on u21 level there is naturally still some hazy knowledge of opponents because of new players every year.

Currently, and due to other definition of the game, the MVP of a team may come seconds before playoff begins.

Actually no, that's not true. The deadline ends on Saturday or Sunday, and the first playoff game is only on Tuesday. So there are two days for you to prepare your lineup, look at this new player's boxscores, etc... It's not like you need to follow him for the whole season...