BuzzerBeater Forums

You could hire whoever you like, but the affect of not suitable staff (including coach) should be massive.

i would say it is already valuable to hire ebtter staff in top div, at least for doctor and trainer.

The doctor is a insurance against injuries, to low division team i sometimes give the hint to invest little there and when somebody injures get a replacement. In top division the value of the players is bigger(more fees), the player get nearl yunsaleable during injury, and paying double salary cost much much more then 5-10k each week. So this strategy for low level staff don't work.

We ain't sure how pr exactly work, but paying 20k more each week, to get 1% more income seem to more valuable when the sources of income are bigger.

On trainer you might not invest much, but we also don't have much money at the end of the week, and the bad effect on training is nearly the same. but the lakers also won't pay a staff manager who didn't produce for his salary, so they pay more then the school staff but also gain lot more also in term of economics, and i believe you don't want that ;) or did you think the cleaner of the lakers get paid 50* of the cleaner of the high school, the lakers are buissness and they calculate cost and use there.

Last edited by CrazyEye at 8/10/2012 2:39:37 AM

Lakers staff will do thier job for a lakers team -take the righr in game calls, know how to handle the press, etc.

Higher division teams that holds low level staff needs to suffer from that as much as a Lakers team will suffer from having a school trainer/coach, PR or a DR.

Do you mean work well for the game for the higher division's team, that can pay unrealistic low money to theur staff and get by with that just fine, and with no seenable affect.

And once again, removing three point shots option will work "well" for this game just as much.

Lakers staff will do thier job for a lakers team -take the righr in game calls, know how to handle the press, etc.

Higher division teams that holds low level staff needs to suffer from that as much as a Lakers team will suffer from having a school trainer/coach, PR or a DR.

so they use it since they need it more, and bring in more money back. So it is even like here.

And about coaches, good college coaches are often better paid then NBA coaches, the best paid is afaik even a college one with 7.5 mio each year while nba coaches sometimes get little more then 1.

Lakers staff will do thier job for a lakers team -take the righr in game calls, know how to handle the press, etc.

Higher division teams that holds low level staff needs to suffer from that as much as a Lakers team will suffer from having a school trainer/coach, PR or a DR.

The counter to that argument is that a school level team has no chance to ever find itself in the NBA. It has no chance to keep its players or purchase new ones or make significant income. As far as basketball is concerned, it is exclusively a place where young talents are trained and if any of their players appear to have a chance to play professionally, the NBA or other leagues sign them. The more you base the game balance on "realism" versus the principles of actually providing a balanced game environment, the worse it will be - unless of course you want to create a game where there are less than 100 "professional" teams who are profitable and always in the top division, and everyone else just exists to create more raw material for them.

Have you considered how this affects teams in micronations who start in the top level? Expecting them to field level 7 staff when they should be building their infrastructure is patently absurd. Have you considered that this will be likely to lead to even more tanking? If teams in the top level often don't want to spend what it takes to compete in the regular season now, why would they if they must then include another $200k/week in staff expenses? If you make the goal of getting to the top league unappealing enough, why would people bother continuing to try to do so?

Excellent post.

And once again, removing three point shots option will work "well" for this game just as much.

Basketball rule are basketball rule. I must say that there's still a difference, such as 6th foul out as they do in the NBA unlike 5th foul such in Europe. That's the rule implied in BB and that's it.

In regard to you suggestion I feel most of your suggestions are not in order to make the game more like real life (Which is not a good idea everytime) - but it's real purpose is to make 1st div teams weaker.

We all understand that and as a 1st div manager there's nothing I can say that will sound objective.

I will say that currently trainer is only in charge of training and not game decisions. Letting trainer level effect GS is a good idea even though I think doctor is the better position for that, specially with "Massage" special ability. (Special ability are not related to staff level, maybe that should be re-think)

Adding a coach to a staff member is a bad suggestion as I see it as games should be determined by teams players, GS, and other elements but most importantly by the user. you should decide your tactic and other elements... not a virtual coach.

And once again, removing three point shots option will work "well" for this game just as much.

Basketball rule are basketball rule. I must say that there's still a difference, such as 6th foul out as they do in the NBA unlike 5th foul such in Europe. That's the rule implied in BB and that's it.

It is just going around the bush.
Normal market behavior is normal market behavior.
Paying more for the TV contract in lower division is as ridiculous as defining the same impact of the coach / trainer on two different divisions.

In regard to you suggestion I feel most of your suggestions are not in order to make the game more like real life (Which is not a good idea everytime) - but it's real purpose is to make 1st div teams weaker.

This ridiculous claim was written about Div 1-3 when I was promoted to Div-3, and about Div 1-2 up until now.
What will you all claim when I'll get to the first division and claim the same things?
The fact that this game has competitiveness issues was proven by me by examples multiple times, and the 45K users and going down is an "on-filed" fact due to that.
As the time pass-by, the non-reasonable affect of "when one joined the game" for defining is strength makes this game worse for new-comers, and hence they leave faster.
Hence, the numbers (of users) are drastically decline.

I will say that currently trainer is only in charge of training and not game decisions.

As already stated - do a "dramatic" change and call him coach instead, and update the decisions accordingly.
Again, this is a try-out for going "around the bush".

Letting trainer level effect GS is a good idea even though I think doctor is the better position for that, specially with "Massage" special ability. (Special ability are not related to staff level, maybe that should be re-think)

The fact that it is one dimensional now (only special ability affect exists), does not mean that it is not more logical to have it more complex and real.

Adding a coach to a staff member is a bad suggestion as I see it as games should be determined by teams players, GS, and other elements but most importantly by the user. you should decide your tactic and other elements... not a virtual coach.

Do you define what to do in each offence play? Do you define exactly the substitution strategy (not who is going for whom, but do you define that when X is substituted Y will stay in court? etc.)? No you don't.
Does it reasonable that the offensive-flow will be affected not just by "the coach at the field" (AKA the PG) but also by the one that is on the line? Surely it is.

Last edited by Pini פיני at 8/14/2012 9:46:11 AM

The fact that this game has competitiveness issues was proven by me by examples multiple times, and the 45K users and going down is an "on-filed" fact due to that.

You've proven that you believe the game has competitive issues. But even if we were to accept that as truth (so we don't have to have that argument again), you've demonstrated no link whatsoever to said issues and the decline in users. Just because two things happen doesn't mean that one necessarily causes the other, and in fact, I would wager that the number of people who leave the game over frustration about your "competitive issues" is less than 10% of the people who leave altogether.