BuzzerBeater Forums

Well, player1 may still have a 75k salary compared to player2's 120k, but player1 would now be easier (and cheaper) to defend against since you need less SB on your bigs to stop him. So it would be a progress towards justifying his lower salary.

Likewise, you wouldn't need as much potential on your bigs as you did before to defend against a team using player1: player1's potential requirements would therefore make more sense than they did before.

To be clear:

In this game the kind of NBA player like Mike Miller or Iman Shumpert does not exist.
It's ridiculous that IS it's almost free.

It's because you needed expensive shotblocking help defenders like Dwight Howard or Roy Hibbert to defend against cheap Michael Beasley or Demar Derozan (offensive minded players who are not threats from 3pt territory but can finish through contact).

Now, instead of Roy Hibbert you may just need Robin Lopez or Tiago Splitter to defend against these guys. Just sayin'

back to read the forum after a long time.. i hoped not to see again you writing such things..
too optimistic :(

Well the last player you posted seems fair. Training a player this multiskilled is hard. Very hard. So the reward that you get a salary-effective player is correct.

Personally I think it's fine that the hard work of training an SF is rewarded this way. And personally I'd prefer the second player over the first.

Just try imagine LeBron James and his inside attack (layups, dunks, ally oops, low post offense,etc) and somebody told you "this skills are not that good to pay a cent for it" or "anybody can do that, you don't need potential at all"
And we are talking about SF not guards nor shooting guards.

I'm not saying that IS need to cost exactly the same that JR. Not at all. I'm saying that it's crazy IS it's almost free for SF.
The potential formula says 1 pop in JR = 7 pop in IS for SF; and salary formula says IS it's free for SF.

In my opinion this is the main factor for inside tactics domination.

^ When people complain about players shooting FT when they are not in the game, we're told it's a viewer bug.
When a team scores after dribbling the ball for 40 seconds, it's a viewer bug. etc..

How about when BB's tell us that box scores would appear faster after the game, but that it may still change after some minutes, so we can't take initial box score as fact.

Sounds to me like two entities working to appear coherent with one another.

The parameters they share was just an extreme example. The main point was that I don't believe the viewer probes inside the GE other than after the game is calculated. But sure, it can probe for things like total number of blocked shots, or individual stats, as long as they exist(?), as long as they influence the next plays(? - if they don't they're just elements of the viewer/box score)...

Imagine people start asking for "points off turnovers" being included in the box scores. Are they going to change the game engine?
Or are they just going to look at player skills and enthusiasm, number of turnovers (assuming it comes from GE) and decide how much of those points scored came from these turnovers?

^ As you'll notice in that statement, as far as gameplay occurrences having an influence on following events, only the score of the game is expressly stated. In other words, you can assume every possession is calculated using the same algorithm with just one variable factor throughout the game (other than recurring randomness factors, applied the same way to every possession). A turnover isn't going to make the player more careful on the next possession.

Of course some studies point to other variable factors like "energy" decreasing with minutes played.

But the point is, your center having the game of his life is not necessarily going to make the opposing center defer to his teammates more than what their relative skillsets initially dictate. In addition, you shouldn't just assume that an increase to the shot-blocking player attribute in the game engine will translate in more blocked shots on the stats sheet, and therefore your approach of judging the extent of GE modifications on the number of blocks in the box score is pretty shortsighted.

edit: It also states the history of the quality of shots the team has seen recently as another variable "amongst other things", so I guess there's that too.

Last edited by Thelonious at 6/20/2013 8:05:36 PM