BuzzerBeater Forums

Thanks for the answer. You make a good point about the position being the first thing you notice, and I agree with you that I don't want the scouting to be easy or a no brainer by any means. I'm glad you all are taking a good look at this though, for future consideration.

indeed, the sequence of info should change.
First scouting should be the best position, then a star grading, and then (but as said by others only if they have 3 or more stars) the grading a, b, c...

This would mean managers HAVE to spend more money in order to find out which are the better (or best) players, but they have to spend only a little if they want a player they are looking for.
It also means every player can be scouted at least twice, without having a 'dumb' scout, only the ones that are not so good will not get a 3rd scouting. With the maximum info one can get in 1 season, I think it would still be imposible to get ALL the info that can become available (quick calculation: 48 players, let's say about 20 would be 2stars or less, then we would need 48 * 2 + about 28 pieces of info = about 124 while one season of scouting is 16 weeks (?) and you can scout 4 players which is 64 pieces of info...)
I think most teams will want a certain position player to be added to their team, and it is possible that one would prefer a 4 star PG over a 5 star center if he has enough good centers but is looking for a good point guard.
With the system we have now there is a good chance to get a good player from your first pick, but you probably have no clue of his postion...

This is not an urgent matter though, since the draft is already good working, but once there is some time for this, the system might improve.

It may even be more improved by telling scouts which type(s) of players to look for, managers could still choose to scout the whole bunch, but they could also choose to scout only guards, in that case once a scout finds a center for best position, he will not scout him a second time, thus giving the manager more chance on valuable info from other players which are posibly guards. The downside is that the manager might miss that superstar center...

notice the about in that sentence...

I know there is a random factor in the amount of stars for the draft players, but isn't is safe to asume that if you order the players on star grading the 24th player in most cases would have 3 stars?

If you then put some 3 star ranked players above and beneath, one would estimate that the 2 star players start around number 28, exeptions possible.

So if my math is correct about 125 pieces (rounded) of info are needed to get the full scale of info following the system from my previous post.
With about 65 pieces of info one could max get ...
Even if I am off, and we would say you only would need 100 pieces of info to get it all, and one could get a max of 75 pieces of info, to make this a 'best case scenario' , still no single manager could collect it all...

no?
:)

yes, that reminds me....MVP is comming up. Whiiiiiiii

Hope you guys also have some time left to look at the bugs forum too.

It actually can be very simple instead of payiing x amount of money per week to scouting you can add a scout to your staff. This way he gets a et amount of money and a rating and if you want a better scout than you pay more for him. If you dont care then you pay $1,000 a week and get someone who barely cares which is the same as some one who never adds money to the scouting anyway. In real life teams have as many scouts as they want depending on what their needs are. So here if you want a great scout the get a scout who is a 10 and pay him $25,000 a week and he will get the job done.

Basically nothing, exept for the fact that there is 1 more type of staff for your team, and also that you will probably not be able to guess the exact amount of scoutinginfo you will get, but you will know a low level will get you not so much info, and a high level will get you some more info.

So there is a diffrence.

Also you wil have a face for your scout, where now there is only an amount to be seen that you want to invest.

I guess this is just a matter of ethics (hope this last word is the right one for what I try to tell, if it does sound odd in this sentence it probably isn't... hope you'll get what I want to say anyway, because I have no clue how I should say it otherwise. ;) )