BuzzerBeater Forums

So many replays on this "stupid" topic... njaaaaaaah I wrote so many topic and just few replays :(
Sad but true... smrc, smrc... :'(

Why not have the third scouting opportunity as a draftee training camp. A one off opportunity just prior to the draft. Teams might have to pay extra (travel costs??)

It would be the chance to include the extra info suggested in the forum so far...

In what realistic universe can we not know the players age, height and position? Scouting is always a bit of a hit and miss business. Kwame Brown? Darko Milicic? But some things are just too obvious. We want a clear and easy system. Why is everyone so afraid of collusion on this? You think real teams don't swap scouting information? It is still hit and miss.

In what realistic universe can we not know the players age, height and position?

normally heigth is really a unknown factor in basketball, there are so mayny player who get extra 10 cm in their player pass ;)

Position especially in the yyouth teams is at least in germany, very often far from reality because in lower competition players the good players often had to play on other positions maybe because a SG could bring the ball better then his teammates, a SF in an undersized teym play PF/C because of his body ...

But why you don't get this infos here, is an ingame decision so that you don't share your scouting informations with other players and get an advantage through it without paying money.

(http://www.philly.com/inquirer/sports/20091111_Villanova_...)

Freshman at Villanova said he was 19, but may actually be as old as 25. Apparently it happens in real life too...

What about an idea where you actually start the season with all drafts displaying ALL their skills / potential / height

Then you select how much you want to pay. ie. Your original data is 20% accurate and the equivalent of spending $10k a week can bring that up to 40%, $20k a week = 60% and $40k a week = 80%

So the beginning step will be something like your scouts were told this kid will be playing tonight come down and watch him..(step 0-1 / first investment)...then it goes on from there.

Then depending on how much you pay you can send a scout to watch him and after each visit 1 or 2 more of his stats are confirmed or altered before you end up the season with many jumbled reads from which you select.

So if you spend nothing each season you have a lot of information that is simply not accurate OR as you spend more money each week you have a greater chance of that information being true as a couple of the stats change or bolden to confirm they are true.

This wouldnt effect people scouting the same guy as many scouts could watch the same player and some would come away with confirmed knowledge of his age/JS some would confirm his RB/Potential etc.

In order to solve should i scout a 1* or 5* maybe you should need to scout a player 3X to be guaranteed to get 2 bits of information of your choice? If the stats of the players at the beginning were pretty similar then maybe if the first read came back with worse confirmations this would indicate (although not 100%) that the player scouting was likely of low value/little use.

This style of draft would also allow managers to lean towards the skillsets they value most or might need due to the other players currently on their roster.

What about the Scout? The fourth member of the staff...

I was actually just coming here to post this, but looks like I was beaten to it.

Implementing a scout as a 4th staff member could make a lot of sense... the levels could be roughly matched to the 5/10/20/40k scouting prices we have now, and would allow specialties to address some of the issues that have been raised in this thread.

For example, maybe you get a Frequent Flyer specialty, where your scout travels as much as possible, getting a lot of 1 visit scoutings, but very few repeat visits. Conversely, you could have an in depth scout that would tend to spend more time at each scouting visit, increasing the likelihood you'll get 2nd impressions of players (whether good or bad players), but decreasing the total # you can scout.

Plus the idea of having a scout as part of the staff makes much more sense than having it included in the Training menu.

The idea is nice but I have some doubts. A lots of the expenses on scouting are not based on a single person. And a network should have money availible like a budget and not so much as a salary.
This suggestion makes it almost impossible to cut short-term expenditures. I am only in 4th league and like it very much that I have a grip on these costs all the time.

Just my 2 cents ;)

The reason that so many people are complaining is because most find it not worthwhile to invest money at all to the scouts - much better off buying directly from the market. Even for the bottom teams who get the first few picks, they are still not guaranteed to benefit from the draft system (money invested in scouts>value of draftees). So I would like to offer a quick fix here: why not lower the scout cost, for example, by 50%? Because currently I think the scout is an investment too risky for most team - fair return, but very high risk. It is punishing the top teams for investing any money at all, which I don't think that is the purpose?