BuzzerBeater Forums

BB Global (English) > Upcoming Staff System

Upcoming Staff System

Set priority
Show messages by
This Post:
00
49875.224 in reply to 49875.222
Date: 10/15/2008 9:30:48 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
225225
well, 5 with a cap of 7 would really put me at about 7.12 in the old system. Even a 6 would have been low balling me.

This would only be true if the improvement in effect between 5 and 7 is the same as the one between 3 to 5, which might or might not be the case.

"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."
From: Shoei

This Post:
00
49875.225 in reply to 49875.222
Date: 10/15/2008 11:49:44 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
11
i think you happen to be a selfish boy that wants anything that is new and if you dont get it you feel the whole world is unfair.

before we only have level 10 guys, wherein now is equal to level 5 guy. dont you think its already something good you dont have to googoo over a level 9 anymore.

have you even thought how your financials work with having a level 6 guy on your staff, even now everyone is paying a bloated amount just to have a new guy.

this is quite a fascinating thought you have, i dont think your not getting anything less of whats the best last time around it onlyu got better.

come on! mate! cheer up!

This Post:
00
49875.226 in reply to 49875.220
Date: 10/15/2008 11:56:05 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
303303
The part of this that is still garbage is that I went from having a very good trainer to having a middle of the road, hardly better than average trainer.


No, your trainer has the same effectiveness as before.

The old scale of 1-10 is now 1-5 (with 6-7 being superior to the 10 of the former system).

NO ONE at this table ordered a rum & Coke
Charles: Penn has some good people
A CT? Really?
Any two will do
Any three for me
Any four will score
Any five are live
This Post:
00
49875.227 in reply to 49875.224
Date: 10/16/2008 4:52:07 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
22

This would only be true if the improvement in effect between 5 and 7 is the same as the one between 3 to 5, which might or might not be the case.

This is 10 million dollar question.

Has someone with authority answered it?

This Post:
00
49875.228 in reply to 49875.224
Date: 10/16/2008 5:25:05 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
2525
well, 5 with a cap of 7 would really put me at about 7.12 in the old system. Even a 6 would have been low balling me.

This would only be true if the improvement in effect between 5 and 7 is the same as the one between 3 to 5, which might or might not be the case.


I understand the system in a way that level 2 is not 200% of level 1. The surplus effect of each additional level, starting from one, decreases.

Example (example!):

1 = 100
2 = 150
3 = 175
4 = 187,5
5 = 193,75
6 = 196,875
etc...

In this example the effect is halved; in reality it will be more complex, but for the purpose of this demonstration it shall suit.

Therefore I see the difference between 5 and 7 not to be the same as between 3 and 5. It is indeed smaller.

@ Dr. Fader: no, I have no authority... ;-)

Last edited by Pallu at 10/16/2008 5:26:26 AM

From: Iordanou

This Post:
00
49875.229 in reply to 49875.228
Date: 10/16/2008 6:20:55 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
22
It seems that the new staff system is just not completed, or these investments will make only teams which have no idea about their team's cash flow

Last edited by Iordanou at 10/16/2008 6:21:19 AM

From: Dr. Fader

This Post:
00
49875.230 in reply to 49875.228
Date: 10/16/2008 8:20:26 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
22
Thanks for the response.

I think the system probably works along the lines you suggest.



This Post:
00
49875.231 in reply to 49875.228
Date: 10/16/2008 10:15:52 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
303303
well, 5 with a cap of 7 would really put me at about 7.12 in the old system. Even a 6 would have been low balling me.

This would only be true if the improvement in effect between 5 and 7 is the same as the one between 3 to 5, which might or might not be the case.


I understand the system in a way that level 2 is not 200% of level 1. The surplus effect of each additional level, starting from one, decreases.

Example (example!):

1 = 100
2 = 150
3 = 175
4 = 187,5
5 = 193,75
6 = 196,875
etc...

In this example the effect is halved; in reality it will be more complex, but for the purpose of this demonstration it shall suit.

Therefore I see the difference between 5 and 7 not to be the same as between 3 and 5. It is indeed smaller.

@ Dr. Fader: no, I have no authority... ;-)


Without saying that the numbers themselves are accurate (as I have no idea), the concept is pretty much that.

In the old system, there was a fairly minute difference between a 9 and a 10, and the difference became greater the further down the scale you went.

I'd be surprised if that was changed.

NO ONE at this table ordered a rum & Coke
Charles: Penn has some good people
A CT? Really?
Any two will do
Any three for me
Any four will score
Any five are live
This Post:
00
49875.232 in reply to 49875.231
Date: 10/16/2008 4:51:44 PM
TOP TEN THUNDERS
PLK
Overall Posts Rated:
190190
the things like effectiveness of trainning in all levels should be known ;/

maybe sume bb give as shot of info ??

This Post:
00
49875.233 in reply to 49875.232
Date: 10/16/2008 5:41:28 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
303303
the things like effectiveness of trainning in all levels should be known ;/


It's never been known and wont start now, at least not specifics.

NO ONE at this table ordered a rum & Coke
Charles: Penn has some good people
A CT? Really?
Any two will do
Any three for me
Any four will score
Any five are live
Advertisement