BuzzerBeater Forums

They should take away the national flag if the original drafter and/or trainers quit. never FA players from teams closed by staff. If they cracked down on this...there would be WAY less high IS guards out there to begin with. Sure yo ucan get a salary efficient player IF you trained IS...but while that guard is playing C...you probalby lose a lot of games. Same for bigs getting OD/PA/HA...this is actually the same/thing/problem....bigs can get this secondaries for no cost of salary, but SB that adds defence always would add salary. Easy to ahve these bigs if you didn't play them in PG yourself.

You are never fare with NT managers and their work.

The u21 coach and his staff with the senior NT help went trough the 300+ leagues in spain, scouting all high salary draftees and high potential draftees, offering advice for training or for selling. Lots of players are lost due to managers going bot, but some are saved by suggesting inconsistent managers to sell and get the money.

In that scenario with your suggestion all that work is for nothing.

Also very good draftees can go both to managers that are going to play a lot and want to compete or to managers who are not really into the game. It is our work to motivate them, give them a reason to stay with that new excellent draftee or just trainee they bought. But that can only work for a while and in the end the manager will leave the game, but those 3 or 4 seasons you extended the managers life and thus saving the trainee and making it an interesting player that will of course go as a free agent.

Also that work would be lost with your suggestion.

I wonder what effect these GS drops will have on transferprices and economy of teams.

I guess there will be less transfers (as in managers NOT paying for the high salary players), so will this mean that prices will drop because the offer of players will be to big?
I fear some teams will have to sell these so called rental players at very low prices (let's hope this will not become a trend) or even fire them because no one will want to pay for these players since the profit you gain as a team is to small (not in long terms, but managers will have to calculate if they are able to pay the salary of these players for longer times).

I guess this will hit some NT's, but creative and dedicated NT managers will be able to overcome these problems I think...
And training draft players will become even more important! But this is not good for starting players since they have weaker trainers and top teams with better trainers will profit from this situation. I think we also have to do something for starting players so they won't be demoralised to much in the beginning of their managership so they keep playing and the community gets bigger once again.

Economy and transferlist/prices will eventually find a balance, but season 24 will be a very interesting season for BB's and other managers to follow :-)

Blocks and Look inside is good in this moment
2-3 it is too weak!
Stronger 2-3 will produce fear of playing look inside and low post

I believe they are also trying to fix 2-3 zone with those changes, correct me someone if I am wrong.

We all know farm exist, it is painfully obvious sometimes but I use Spain as an example because we have been succesfull without one illegal move, and this is my 7th season involved in the NT.

Maybe its because we have a lot of draftees and dont need them to compete, maybe its because we have more people working as a group to make it work but the awnser does not come from changing the NT competition but by upgrading anti-cheaters tools.

Blocking proxy's from creating new teams was a much asked and needes feature and that is working on the right direction.

I think increasing the shotblocking is a good move in the current game.

But the game-shape hit to new players I am not so sure. Have you taken into accounts how this can affect other areas of the game where new players are needed other than renting for cup matches? (as division change or rebuilding situation)

Yes, we have take into account the side effects and will keep evaluating these based on the response we get now by announcing it one season early. So thanks a lot for the feedback so far.

As stated in the news item, game shape hits will be higher for high game shape players than low game shape players. Since newly promoted teams buy mostly before or in the week after the game shape reset, it is unlikely that this change will have a large effect on their performance since even if they buy after the game shape hit the change in game shape will not be large. Most of you all know that you rarely get players in 9 game shape after the first week of training (wait for the 'hey my game shape is wrong' comments that are standard every 1st training after the reset ;)).

Regarding NT players, if a player gets sold often then apparently that players isn't worth his price for the team. The players skill sets are probably inefficient for players that get sold 4-5 times in a season. The game shape change will thus also promote the creation of more salary efficient players, which will on its turn decrease the amount of high salary powerhouses which I believe is a good thing as well. For U21 draftees, there are just few teams who buy a draftee for a direct performance increase. For most teams the 18 or 19yo draft talents are not direct starters, but rather long term investments, which makes the game shape quite irrelevant.

From a realism point I also believe the proposed change will be great for BB. More often than not, players will take time to integrate into their new teams, cities, environment etc before they can perform optimally. For this reasons you also can't expect a player that moves 5 times per season to perform at his best at national teams. One 'real life' example is the Dutch National Football team, where the National Coach refused to select big players like Sneijder, Van der Vaart and Van Persie shortly after they got transfered since he believed they 'required time to get use to their new situation'. I'm not saying this always is the case, I'm sure you can find some examples where a player actually benefits from a transfer but overall this would be covered by the player being already in horrible shape at his current team, and thus the hit will be non-existent or minimal.

Regarding the comments about team chemistry on enthusiasm. If you buy players but don't field them, your old teammates will still know where and when to pass exactly like before. The arrival has no influence at all unless he plays. And if he plays, his influence is mostly on every action where he is involved, and just for a small part in the actions where he is not involved. I believe having a hit on Game Shape much better reflects the 'team chemistry' part than a hit on enthusiasm, especially when you consider what areas of BB are affected the most by the enthusiasm.

Last edited by BB-Patrick at 3/13/2013 11:37:46 AM

Hi DerMef,

We may want to make changes to the salary formula if we feel there is a need for it (basically, if the SB change seems to not be sufficient on it's own) as BB-Marin already noted in the season 22 topic.

I have to disagree with your conclusion though, mainly based on historical arguments. The Look Inside dominance is something that has not been there for an extremely long time. I remember a period of multiple seasons where Run and Gun was clearly dominating. If I'm right, the urge for managers to play Run n Gun was much higher than the current urge of playing Look Inside, even in international play, during those season.

Back then, we had the same training and salary system. Yes, for a while some of the top salaries got reduced a bit during equilibrium corrects in offseason, but essentially the training and salary system didn't change between the time of a clear dominance of RnG vs dominance of LI.

Blocks and Look inside is good in this moment
2-3 it is too weak!
Stronger 2-3 will produce fear of playing look inside and low post

I'm not sure if that was ment as a remark or not, but since it was quoted later on I just want to confirm that the change indeed makes 2-3 stronger.

I have to disagree with your conclusion though, mainly based on historical arguments. The Look Inside dominance is something that has not been there for an extremely long time.

When R&G was the preferred tactic back in season 12 I bought 3 talented 18 year olds to train.
Back then, the elastic effect wasn't known yet, but the salary formula had been pretty much figured out and salary calculators started to appear.
I pondered a lot on how to train my players and what kind of team I wanted to build and came to the conclusion that the best way is to play look inside, because it's the most salary efficient way.
Of course, many more people came to that same conclusion and started training their players accordingly.

So, my theory is that as soon as the salary formula was figured out and managers could calculate which is the most efficient way to build a team, more and more managers started to train "look inside players".
Now that these players are all fully trained, we're seeing the look inside dominance in full effect.

You're right, the training and salary system didn't change. What changed was that managers figured them out and adjusted the way they played the game.