BuzzerBeater Forums

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

I'm sorry for Josh Fuall, as we seem to fade away a little from his original subject. I'd be happy to continue the discussion in another place (or just here if he's ok with it) if you'd like.

Once again, I'm not here to proof what's wrong or right or who's wrong or who's right. I'm speaking as a user here - I didn't pull any information from the database (i'm not even directly able to). It's no where my intention to blame the customer, i think i've highlighted this several times already in my posts, but somehow you seem to misread or not want to read this. I'm here to raise a discussion about a certain point where taking one argument (the blame the devs game) is much easier than the other, on which I doubt that argument is fair. As you see I already stated that I cannot confirm nor deny the existence of the problem, for the purpose of this topic I just assume there might be a problem and then aim to trow a different light on the same subject.

We all aren't even close to having acces to amounts of data that can possibly test whether or not there is an issue. Simply because we do not know skillsets of other teams when looking at games and we also do not have a sample with known high ID/SB players large enough to actually observe the results (as these kind of players are a rarity in this game at the moment). In this case though, I'd value the opinion of the one that actually programmed the engine (Charles) highly, so I assume some skills are currently undervalued by the majority.

There is a huge risk for confirmation bias in this case, though, so that's why we should be careful taking strong stances. I also feel that this is where your argument is coming from, but correct me if I'm wrong, it's seems to be that you argue from the position I know the BB-designers are wrong and thus these are the results from it, rather than the other way around.

What I'm missing in your argument is the comparison. We didn't define what's high shot blocking and to what to compare it. That's what I'm also missing in the high salary argument since Josef Ka's formula's have shown shot blockings coefficient has been lower than the one for IS,ID and RB. In terms of your challenge for a maximum salary player it could very well be that a high shot blocking one compared to the opponents IS and compared to its own IS,ID and RB may be more effiicient both salary and performance wise. Noting at this comparison we may actually want to create a center that switches the current values of IS and SB of the centers. I'd expect this tol be a very performance efficient center. It will still be able to abuse its opponents possibly not optimal defense, but it can defend on its own.
Just look at the transferlist. If I search for Inside Shot - Minimum: Prodigious (16) I get 239 results, if I search for Shot Block - Prodigious (16) I get only 1. While as we showed earlier, the SB-16 is probably cheaper in terms of salary.

I'm not saying you have to swap these skills, but I'm just using this as an example that there probably are much more salary AND performance efficient players possible than we see now. If they are created, wouldn't this also help the problem of the original poster? I'd expect this will contribute to it, yes.