BuzzerBeater Forums

I would argue that the point and fun of this game is that when you invest time and energy into solving the problems the game presents to you to solve, that you can do well and see success.

IMO all I have to invest now in is money. I mean I am trying to save some money to buy a better player for team but instead I have to spend it on a staff which is consuming even more money every week. It's no fun.

That's for sure! But even when the difference is 10% and you get a pop every week now, it would only be a difference of 4 pops in 3 seasons... And to be honest: if you really want to train a player for your NT, I think allstar potential is a bigger problem then the difference between a lvl 4 or lvl 5 trainer. All the extra training you were able to give him because of your high level trainer will be lost as soon as he hits the softcap...

Last edited by Thijs at 1/6/2009 2:45:14 PM

Yep, your math is correct. IF the difference is 10%, 4.2 pops would be the difference in 3 seasons. More exactly 1.4 pops each season. Not as significant, as I first thought. Let's hope the difference is really 10%.

Last edited by the L train at 1/6/2009 3:01:26 PM

okay... i think i may have misread your initial complaint.. and/or i was reacting to like i said a generic form of argument more than the one you were making.. i apologize if that was the case.

Let me point out that

But certainly, we will begin to see a drop on the number of NT players coming from lower than 3rd division teams. Which consequently will lower, even more, the competition level among National Teams.

isn't completely true... i mean... what do you mean by "competition level"? you mean the absolute skill level of the national teams? or something about the balance between skills levels across different countries.

I think that I agree with you that this sort of system is going to have the best trainers with the best teams... though I will also say that it should be the case that the top divisions should be focused more on winning than on training and thus should not be able to invest as much in training as others might. How those two effects balance could arguable create a situation where the highest caliber players are trained on the highest division teams. I think the question is whether that is good for the game or poor for the game. It is another way in which things are better for teams at the top than teams at the bottom.. and so in my mind this gets back to the generic argument i was speaking about before.. is it best to have equality across all divisions or to make there be advantages to being in higher divisions. It is my view that in order for this game to be fun, you need to have strong incentives to advance, and thus there must be good things about being in the higher divisions.... Now probably there is some balance to be reached... I would love to be more quantitative about what the parameters are to make that balance... how we would know if the advantages are too great or too small... etc etc.

I haven't seen any information other then training efficiency due to trainer level being non-linear. If I remember correctly, GM-JuicePats stated somewhere that the difference between a lvl 1 trainer and a level 2 trainer is much bigger then between a lvl 4 and lvl 5, and it would most likely break down something like this:

lvl 1: 50%
lvl 2: 75%
lvl 3: 87%
lvl 4: 94%
lvl 5: 100%
lvl 6: 104%
lvl 7: 106%

These numbers are fictional, as BB's don't give exact numbers on these subjects.


Last edited by Thijs at 1/6/2009 3:35:54 PM

it should be possible to sell trainers ;)

I've been thinking about it and makes sense. I thought that it could create a consolidation of the top teams but then I remembered that the winning championship team doesn't get any bonus but the promoted one does. Plus, taking importance on the National Cup winnings was also a good initiative. And the worst possible scenario on this situation, is that the first league teams will form a rigid core that basically 6 of them will always be there (as they have the best players and coaches). But that situation has a simple solution and I'm sure y'all will be alert for that situation. After all, that's why I became a BB supporter.

Last edited by the L train at 1/6/2009 3:53:58 PM

I think more like...

66
80
90
95
100
102
103

but I'm guessing ;-)

ok... i dont understand why people want it ALL in these kind off games.

there are level 1-7 coaches, doctors and pr guys. See it in proportion. In a country where there are 7 leagues, teams in league 1 should have and be able to afford level 7 coaches, in league 2 should have and be able to afford level 6 coaches etc etc I am sure you understand what I am trying to get at. Off course there could be some overlap, but a division 3 or 4 team shouldnt be able to afford a level 6 or 7 coach!!!

It would be very unrealistic for Accrington Stanley to be able to afford Mourinho as coach/manager. Or in basketball terms, a team in the 4th division in Holland can't afford a NBA coach. Why should it be different in this game?? Why should a lower level team have the cream de la cream off players in the lower division??

ok... i dont understand why people want it ALL in these kind off games.

I play in Italy division II. When i play an home game my weekly net income is about 10k (that means my season balance is negative). At the moment it is very hard for me to replace my current level 5 trainer (salary 28k) with a cheaper one.

I don't want the old staff system back, but the recent changes altogether (economy, staff, potential) have made the economic management much more difficult and more relevant in the game.