BuzzerBeater Forums

BB Global (English) > Soft cap.

Soft cap.

Set priority
Show messages by
This Post:
00
84203.41 in reply to 84203.40
Date: 4/6/2009 6:57:32 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
9191
It just sounded like you were saying all skill increases were 1's regardless of position, and therefore the position you are assigned has no bearing on salary based on the variances in skills for just that position (a PF with slightly higher ID vs PF with slightly higher OD skill)

I do get confused sometimes. Thanks for taking the time to clear that up. I feel I am back to the page I was on before......wherever that is :)

From: brian

This Post:
00
84203.42 in reply to 84203.27
Date: 4/6/2009 8:08:05 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
576576
And that would explain why Mathiot capped at 90-100k


maybe i missed the discussion on Mathiot early in this thread, but, just cause mathiot made it to 90-100k salary doesnt mean his potential was higher. he could have hit the cap at 50k, and kept training (at a slower pace) all the way up to 100k, 200k, etc

"Well, no ones gonna top that." - http://tinyurl.com/noigttt
This Post:
00
84203.43 in reply to 84203.31
Date: 4/10/2009 12:45:26 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
154154

I don't know what theory you have in mind. Potential is based on salary, not directly on skill level -- and this is 100% true unless you have some reason to believe the game developpers are lying to all of us.

provide a quote from BBs then... Or just stop act you know for sure. You have a theory, not a fact.

This Post:
00
84203.44 in reply to 84203.33
Date: 4/10/2009 12:47:52 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
154154

I can tell you with almost complete certainty that your experience is wrong.

No comment. Is there some "best-of-quotes" thread somewhere?

This Post:
00
84203.45 in reply to 84203.43
Date: 4/10/2009 12:53:21 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
303303

I don't know what theory you have in mind. Potential is based on salary, not directly on skill level -- and this is 100% true unless you have some reason to believe the game developpers are lying to all of us.

provide a quote from BBs then... Or just stop act you know for sure. You have a theory, not a fact.


Do you understand what a GM does?

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
84203.47 in reply to 84203.43
Date: 4/10/2009 1:29:16 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
224224
provide a quote from BBs then... Or just stop act you know for sure. You have a theory, not a fact.

Unfortunately, I don't tend to carry a recorder when I talk to people. Bad luck for you -- you'll just have to live with my word on it.

"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."
This Post:
00
84203.49 in reply to 84203.48
Date: 4/10/2009 1:34:57 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
224224
So this is your way of saying: It has been officially confirmed by the BBs that potential is defined on salary?

The one thing I can confirm is that potential is defined on a combination of skills in the same manner salary is. Which I guess is observationally identical to "defined on salary".

"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."
This Post:
00
84203.50 in reply to 84203.46
Date: 4/10/2009 1:37:47 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
303303
Do you understand what a GM does?
not addressed to me, but I don't really. GMs take part in speculative discussions on their own behalf, and sometimes they mediate to the BBs. But it is almost never clear which is which - I guess mostly they are just speaking their own mind. So I think it's reasonable to assume so unless a GM adds a little clause like "I have official confirmation from the BBs that..."


Generally GMs should be speaking as GMs - that tag beside our names tends to give people the impression that whatever we say is official.

I try my best to qualify any statements that are speculation on my part as such.

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
84203.51 in reply to 84203.46
Date: 4/10/2009 6:10:07 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
154154
Do you understand what a GM does?
not addressed to me, but I don't really. GMs take part in speculative discussions on their own behalf, and sometimes they mediate to the BBs. But it is almost never clear which is which - I guess mostly they are just speaking their own mind. So I think it's reasonable to assume so unless a GM adds a little clause like "I have official confirmation from the BBs that..."

Co-signed. I think it would be pleasant change if GMs (and especially some of them) discover phrases like "I think" "IMHO" "It's a wide consensus" "it only makes sense that" and such things unless they have a clear confirmation without any doubts from BBs about this or that topic. I can't care less but someone who would try to confuse people on purpose wouldn't do much better job (than you know who). That's nothing against anyone just there is a known pattern that somebody mixes his interpretentation with rules-like notorieties. (please if you want to answer what i guess you will use "to everybody" thanks).

Advertisement