BuzzerBeater Forums

We've been using the D thing in Cleveland since 06 when we got Damon Jones. We called him amon ones. No D and no J.

I agree on the scouting issues. I'd like to see age and/or height for everyone even if I don't scout them, I just feel like that's something that everyone would have even if you never actually sent anyone out to scout that player. I agree on the waste of scouting a 1 star guy twice, what I'd like to see is if you scout 4 guys a week for 14 weeks (56 reports) you get the list of available players at the end of the season and instead of having players already scouted you just click on a random player and expend 1 report, this way you can decide if you want to scout them again, I just think those 2 things might make the process more realistic as a whole, although this is free so it's pretty tough to complain

I'd like to see age and/or height for everyone even if I don't scout them, I just feel like that's something that everyone would have even if you never actually sent anyone out to scout that player.

As stated before, this could make it too easy for leaguemates to collude.

Unfortunately, when it comes to the draft, realism is out the window. It is certainly abstract, but considerably less easy to exploit.

As I stated in this thread and others: Give us more information to judge from!

As has been stated in this thread already: Probably not going to happen.


Last edited by GM-kozlodoev at 2/11/2009 7:53:26 PM

the intent of keeping information to a minimum is due to the effect that fear of too much disclosure and getting advantage by a small group among the many.

i think asking for more box scores wont be given,

but i think what we can do is to have an option for the manager to look into certain skill he wants which can vary, meaning if your looking for a guard who has passing skill, you can see a few who have specific report that he has passing but it dont generally can say its respectable or average or mediocre and if he doesnt have the skill we dont need to show it anymore such as to say probably his not scouted or there is none.

if one see the player scouted got passing skills and now you can base it on the game performance of the player and its up to you how you weigh it.

to make it more complicated, could it be possible that one's manager scouting report be differ from another, i dont believe scouts always end up in one game wherein all of them are there.

that only happens in the movies.

Last edited by Shoei at 2/11/2009 10:02:56 PM

I think certain skill is too narrow but I would like to see investing in scouting be made more attractive by allowing GMs to tell the Scouts to favour one position. For instance, I'd be more inclined to invest 40k a week if I knew all available PGs would be scouted twice.

The draft had obvious limitations but sadly too much information really is a dangerous thing in this case.

you do know that if you invest 40k a week you will get all the 48 players scouted twice right? notonly the PGs

no, it's impossible to scout every player twice even with max Scouting. You can calculate it, btw. There are 13 weeks of possible scouting. 4x13 = 52 players.

There are 48 players. If you want to scout them twice you need 96x scouting.
So you'll have 96-52 = 44 open fields in the list. I think you get 12-14 info for free. So it'll be about 30 blank spots in the list...

Last edited by Legen...Riceball...Dary! at 2/12/2009 6:37:30 AM