BuzzerBeater Forums

I try with this

A center needs rebound, ID and IS. He needs these 3 skills to play well, not to be sell well.

A SF needs JS, distance shot, OD, ID, ball possession, passage and to be completed also IS.

If you've 30 points available as sum of potential, you'll have a center lvl 10 in the 3 skills he needs, at the same time the guard will have a lvl 4, let's say also 5, in all the skills he needs. As you can see, a lvl 10 plays quite well, a player with skills lvl 4 no, that's the point. If you try to train a SF in only 3 skills your SF will not play well, I can tell this for sure. I hope to have explained a little bit better my point of view

See, i thought i already understood you the first time ;)

Serious, you are so right about the above. But like i said earlier: that problem already existed before the recent adding of potential. And the adding of potential doesnt changed that because nobody will train faster/slower.

Your point you are trying to make is the fact that you think its harder to train a guard. True. Its easier to train a center to a higher level, on all his premium skills. But thats also the main reason why centers are cheaper.


Last edited by Maupster at 5/11/2008 8:37:12 PM

Hmm well this is all news to me. My first assumption was that the potential would allow you to reach a certain plateau for your skills -all skills- so if you had a player with starter potential for example they would be able to get every single skill to let's say 'strong' before hitting the training decrease for that skill.

Now i'm hearing that there's a point total sort of way of calculating potential? Am i right in interpreting that if you had atrocious skills in one area, that would leave more room (or more 'points') open for another skill to be higher than normal instead?

This seems crazy to me and totally against the whole balanced player/team thing that was trying to be promoted. Someone please correct me if i'm reading this discussion incorrectly, i sure hope so.

It's the main reason why they are favored to train not the reason to why they are cheaper. They being cheaper is because they are favored for training.

The potential puts an extra pressure on guards now, because the cap is a sum of all the skills. Thats where the 6 skills vs 4 skills comes knocking on the door. :)

Now i'm hearing that there's a point total sort of way of calculating potential? Am i right in interpreting that if you had atrocious skills in one area, that would leave more room (or more 'points') open for another skill to be higher than normal instead?

That is correct, if i read the first two posts of the topic.

edited: double post

Last edited by DireWolf at 5/11/2008 9:50:40 PM

In season 3, my starting shooting guard was the league MVP with exactly 0 assists for the season.

Well the decisions we make as managers is based on our own research and knowledge so I prefer to judge and award the MVP's myself instead of a computer programme... so I have just learnt to accept that its unlikely I will agree with the selection and feel confident that my guys are actually better than the positions (yes I did get a guy feature this season!) than they are suggested to be.

a large point that is missing from this discussion is that ratings are relative things...

so if you are training a guard in 5 areas, versus a center in 3 .. or whatever the difference, i'll agree the guard is going to have lower skills... but you can't compaire strong passing to strong inside shot.. because strong passing is compared against strong outside defense.. etc etc.

just because a center's absolute skill level is higher doesn't mean he will play better.. because playing better means matching up favorably against your opponent, and if your opponents average center also has higher ratings than its not really "higher" in terms of performance.

I think this is a good thing, because its a way for intelligent an observant players to take advantage of mistakes that less observant players might make. An observant player will note that guards on average have to have lower skills and thus will normalize their value correctly. In the end that sort of calculation is what the game is about... looking at options in terms of personnel moves, and having some model in your head about how those potential moves are going to affect your team. Those people with better model's are gonna do better.

The game should also be enjoyable on a much lower less sophisticated level, and we hope to strike a balance that lets that happen.. but it seems those most vocal in this thread are thinking about the more in depth issues.

No that is all understood and the basis for the arguments in this thread and the training options thread.

The most vocal managers are often the ones that think very deeply about how to continously improve and optimize their wages/performance/training etc

I guess also we are questioning ourselves (whilst trying to get some affirmative response) from you (BB's) to see if our deep thinking is actually going in the right direction.. (as the deeper you go offsite the more difficult it is to get back on track!)

I have a picture as to a) how I want my team to play and b) what players I need to buy/build to execute that plan.

Rightly or wrongly this involves me wanting to know more about potential (as we all do) and I want to know if and if so when we can be allowed more creative freedom with the training of our players.

Now if Im wrong in my approach to training or players that fit the mold of an 'ideal' team then I will slowly fall back in progress terms... i just want the ability to keep trying to inch ahead over my peers with correct decisions.

Last edited by Superfly Guy at 5/11/2008 10:33:45 PM