BuzzerBeater Forums

I think that maybe if one could choose his secondary training skill that would have been changed.
Maybe then users will try to use the secondary skill for some not-traditional skill more often.

Since you actually presented an intelligently-reasoned rationale for a "players rather than positions" methodology, I actually feel like this response won't be going to a brick wall.

The first point I'd argue is that "just 48 minutes" might not be a good enough standard -- allowing a team to train all three of their trainees in a throwaway scrimmage each week would make it far simpler than it should be. There should be some choices required in determining whether to train or not, and having a scrimmage game take care of an entire week's training just doesn't sit well with me. Then of course, a natural suggestion is that each game can be used for 48 minutes worth of training (plus any OT minutes), but outside of the guys who play 48 minutes in a game, that gets complicated.

I wonder if a better solution may be to allow any training type at any position, but perhaps with a bonus if the player is in the "right" position or a corresponding penalty if an extremely different one. Or maybe just a different allocation of the skills? For example, if you choose passing, for PG, there is a big increase in passing plus the regular, smaller secondary increases in the related skills. If you choose it for C, the passing will grow less, but maybe with bigger increases in handling and driving. It'd have to be balanced out so that a skill's primary position is always the best overall in terms of benefit, but that out of position training is close enough to be a valid choice. Of course, it'll never catch on, either with the "But I have to have 19-19-19 inside guys" crowd or the "no, a player without great potential trained perfectly is worthless!" crowd, but I can hope. ;)

Well, the general conception that actually leads to the 'problem' as stated by the original poster is that an inside players needs only 3 out of 10 skills, while everybody does agree that the outside plays need 6 out of 10 skills. Just compare the skillspread average trained guard with the skillspread of an average trained center and you'll notice this clearly.

Why doesn't anybody challenge this culture instead of calling for changes, since that 3 vs 6 reasoning doesnt make sense? Maybe the possibility to change is already there, but overseen.

It's not that hard to train players out of position, since you actually can keep playing the player at his natural defense whereas only his offense position counts for training minutes. There has always been a tradeoff by short term and long term gains and losses, a game where you can do both at the same time continuesly will mostly be too easy and quickly become boring (imo). If you'd like us to make each player trainable at whatever position you want, we would completely remove the challenge of creating a top class player. A challenge in which the best managers will succeed, and others may not.

Great answer. We don't need a piss easy game!

Amen!!

A lot of the discussion in this thread is off the original topic. The point of this topic isn't another discussion of well-rounded players v mono-skilled players; the point is that these high salaried players exist and are an issue that needs to be fixed. My original idea was that incentivising having one of these style of players on your team would eliminate the issues surrounding such players. Removing them as per Manon's idea similarly would eliminate the issues.

As you admit, salary is not perfectly correlated with performance. This isn't an argument you should be using to defend the current state of affairs; this only exacerbates the situation. If I have to choose between player A and B where player A is more effective, cheaper per week, but more expensive initially, and player B who will cripple my economy, perform worse, but is cheap to buy I will choose player A every time. If player B costs 100k per week more, within a season I will have probably paid the same amount for each player. Within 2 seasons player A really is the only sensible choice.

The points I have made are clear to any experienced manager in this game. I have not put anything forward that is particularly original yet you still miss the point of this suggestion. If you look through the debates in this thread one thing is clear: no matter which side people are on they are in agreement of one thing. That is that these types of players really are a problem in this game. Surely you accept this? If not, then obviously there is no point continuing discussion. But if you do accept that it is a problem then you should work to find a solution. It doesn't really matter if it isn't a realisitic solution, as long as it improves the game. There are two ways to solve the problem: increase demand or reduce supply. Simple economics.

I hope you do not take this message as me being confrontational, as that is far from my intention. I love this game and appreciate the hard work that you all put in. I just want to see an improvement to this great game and think this is one of the primary ways in which this game can be improved. Thank you for reading all of this, sorry for the essay.

Na, we just simply disagree I guess, or maybe you didn't understand most of the post - or I didn't understand most of yours, which could be possible since I'm not a native English speaker (f.e I don't understand where many of the conclusions you seem to make based on my words come from otherwise)

In my opinion the reason why LI is dominant - if it's even dominate which i doubt - is that somehow people didn't want to train shotblocking, one of the essential skills to defend a Look Inside. Some BBs have been telling us for seasons already about the value of f.e Shot Blocking, but it was simply ignored - Even though it has always been available even as a C only option. I'm just here to raise the question whether this assumption that the error is in game design rather than the strategy users choose is fair or not. You certainly remember the times when Run and Gun was completely dominant a few season ago right? The managers adjusted as wel, I believe this will also happen with the current trend.

@Josh even if there is an issue (which i cannot confirm nor deny, since I don't have the information to do so), it doesn't necessarily mean the only change can be one from the side of the developers. It may very well be that the solution is already there, but not applied. Simple economics will also say you won't train your player 3 more seasons on already dominant skills with a questionable net gain in performance to make the player a 400k salary one without any market value, while you could have sold the player 3 seasons already for 2.5m only to buy 4 of these 400k salary players if you had to, unfortunately many people don't choose to do so. I guess the BB economics aren't that simple after all.

Last edited by BB-Patrick at 4/13/2012 4:15:10 PM