BuzzerBeater Forums

You could reply to Dermef's argument that a purely defensive + JS/JR Center, built to fit an outside offense, would cost less than the standard Center needed for a LI offense. I think it would be interesting to see more defensive centers.

That kind of big man would be a PF, not a center. It sounds like a trivial distinction but it means that outside skills still count for the salary calculation.

Sure, you can build a defensive PF that doesn't make that much money, but the problem with that is that a) he still costs more than a comparable look inside guard and b) while you can have a look inside guard with a great jump shot for those mid-range shots that you still take with look inside, your defensive center will be severely limited offensively when it comes to those inside opportunities that you get even with an outside tactic.

The reality speaks for itself. Teams with look inside players have been the most successful teams for a few seasons now and in my opinion it's not because outside tactics are weaker but because inside tactics are cheaper and thus give you better results for your money.

They would probably gain by a wider margin if he wasn't forfeiting. With a scrubs team, they would win by 80 easily.

ok well my perhaps this was a bad example because the guy quit. Im talking about the ones that forfeit to get a better draft. Not only is it in their best interest to have a worse PD but if they happen to have identical records as someone else because of forfeiting they get the tiebreaker and get the better draft pick. Not to mention how it completely ruins anyone's training minutes that happens to play against a forfeit. I think I remember a BB defending forfeiting saying it is a strategy but cant remember all that was said. Could there be an explanation of why forfeiting is allowed and how it enhances the game?

Last edited by Prof. Bricks at 3/13/2013 11:26:02 PM

You'd still only have 17 - 15 for inside defense, compared to 20 for outside defense on a similar guard. Sure, that guy would be good and relatively cheap, but it's also more difficult to train 17s for inside skills AND high jump range on one player... training one on one is much easier.

Something that I believe also contributes to the problem is that inside defense depends on ID and BL, outside defense depends on OD. Inside scoring depends on IS, outside scoring depends on JS and JR.

It's clearly easier to have high inside scoring and outside defense than high outside scoring and inside defense, which is reflected heavily in what we're seeing from the best teams.

Last edited by DerMef at 3/13/2013 11:50:38 PM

It's clearer than that. In comparing outside bigs to inside guards, the only thing that matters as a trainer is the amount of out of position training.

A top inside guard needs to play out of position to get IS. I would focus some off position training for PA and maybe some JR. I would not expect to have much more out of position training for the big compared to the guard. Ideally, you'd improve other off position skills but these standout as the most important.

Everything else can be done within the player's long term position. The number of skills to be trained is unimportant to me. Good players train into their prime no matter the build. Good outside bigs can be built, it just hasn't been done on a mass scale yet.

An improvement to 2-3, by way of a SB change, is a decent idea assuming its calibrated properly. Either way, I wish I hadn't started a long 15 season rebuilding plan as a LI team that's coming into its prime and finishing training head on with a change that is meant to limit its effectiveness.

I am still hoping that the GS hit is just a joke or will never happen.

You want to fix a minor problem (cup rentals) and at the same time, we see (heavy) impact on NTs, promoted teams, economy (sic!) and probably a couple of other things we dont think of now.

As a result we will probably see inflation coming back, more NT farm teams, inactive transfer market in the seocnd half of the season, NT coaches ranting about their teams being sabotaged...

There are like a dozen EASY ways of fixing the cup issue, without changing the WHOLE game. The "creative" staff fails once again. I expect this "feature" to become something half-baked like the 5th place fix.

EDIT: not intended to adress manon - just a general rant.

Last edited by Knecht at 3/16/2013 10:39:30 AM

I am still hoping that the GS hit is just a joke or will never happen.

You want to fix a minor problem (cup rentals) and at the same time, we see (heavy) impact on NTs, promoted teams, economy (sic!) and probably a couple of other things we dont think of now.

As a result we will probably see inflation coming back, more NT farm teams, inactive transfer market in the seocnd half of the season, NT coaches ranting about their teams being sabotaged...

There are like a dozen EASY ways of fixing the cup issue, without changing the WHOLE game. The "creative" staff fails once again. I expect this "feature" to become something half-baked like the 5th place fix.

EDIT: not intended to adress manon - just a general rant.

This doesn't only affect Cup purchases, it affects teams tanking all season and then buying a team to avoid relegation and teams buying up a team to win the playoffs. Currently, there is absolutely no negative effects whatsoever from purchasing rental players. If we tilt the slippery slope argument the other direction, without this change teams will simply carry the minimum salary possible as long as possible, use their savings to buy a fleet of rentals, and the whole regular season would be meaningless, ruining the game for everyone.

And the complaints about the impact to the NT are pretty much worthless - the goal of the BB staff should be (and appears to be) working to make the core game experience better and more balanced. So what if the NT is affected? Why are they effected? It's because players NOBODY WANTS OR CAN AFFORD are being created to try to fill NT rosters and then people realize that they can't afford them. It's not like most of them have decent GS to begin with anyhow, since they get bought, play as close to 48 minutes as they can, and move on to their next game.

The "newly promoted" team argument is the one that makes the most sense, and I imagine that it is likely that there will be a window early in the season to allow teams to bring in new players without the hit. But even if there's not, if a team can't manage a minimal GS drop when they're looking to add to their lineup, they don't deserve to stay up in their new league anyhow. If this change actually gets people to put a little more thought into their team-building rather than just looking as the players as assets to be bought and sold, it'd definitely be an improvement.

Tanking? Tanking was solved with the oh so marvelous salary floor, wasn't it?

If it was such a great strategy to be mediocre and then go all-in and buy the title, we would see this pattern more offen.

And the complaints about the impact to the NT are pretty much worthless - the goal of the BB staff should be (and appears to be) working to make the core game experience better and more balanced. So what if the NT is affected? Why are they effected? It's because players NOBODY WANTS OR CAN AFFORD are being created to try to fill NT rosters and then people realize that they can't afford them. It's not like most of them have decent GS to begin with anyhow, since they get bought, play as close to 48 minutes as they can, and move on to their next game.

It's not so simple. Any transfer of an NT player, no matter how affordable they are, is going to cost an NT. Suppose a manager decides it's time to sell their stud player because they have been eliminated from regular season contention and they want to switch tactics. An NT may lose said player for semifinals and finals.

This may be an acceptable consequence if there was no alternative: I suppose that the individual part of the game (club teams) should probably prioritized over the collective part of the game (NT). So if the club side requires a change to the detriment of the NT so be it.

But there is a simple, less damaging, alternative : introduce a variable like Team Chemistry that belongs to a player relative to a team. Team Chemistry can take a value between 0.1 and 1 and acts as a multiplier on GS. So, if I sell Nielsen before the POs Nielsen's Chemistry with his new team is 0.1 but his chemistry with the NT remains high.

This would have been clearer thinking, clearer programming and would have solved the problems with club transfer without destroying the NTs strategy management.

That's an interesting thought, but at least having a range of 0.1 - 1.0 would definitely put way too much negative effect and for too long for club purchases. It would introduce an entirely new game concept that strictly exists to provide a negative to game shape for players who have just been purchased, but with an effective exception for NT players - which essentially encourages more NT players being sent on traveling tours. It also would mean that once a guy has been transferred once, there's no more detriment in subsequent transfers - as opposed to the proposal, where if you buy the guy, his GS drops, and then the next guy buys him and the GS drops again, and so on. And for those guys who are affordable and transferred infrequently, the GS hit would be unpleasant for sure but the NT has always had to work around uncooperative users.

Besides that, this multiplier seems like the entirely wrong way to implement a "team chemistry" type of concept. Team chemistry should instead function like a bonus to players who have played together for some time, which would be a small bonus to those players for their familiarity with each other. Ideally, I'd love to see BB do something to incentivize long-term team development in addition to providing disincentives for rental players, but that's another discussion for another time and place.