BuzzerBeater Forums

That's not how star ratings work or are supposed to work.

Well, a good way to examine your argument "a player with allstar potential will always be a bad player" is to go to the Transfer list, filter out players with allstar potential or lower, sort them by TSP or salary, and see what you get. Currently the best has 122 TSP, and I know some of them even starts regularly in a tier I league. I don't know what is "bad" in your perspective, but clearly those players are good enough to me.

Looking into the game manual, star rating is the one which showed up after being scouted once, which is referred as "a more accurate assessment". That said, it is still an estimation.

Therefore, when you say "star rating max 4 balls when potential is 3 balls", do you also acknowledge that star rating is still an estimation, but you feel that it should be more accurate?

I just want to try to anticipate the implications if what you said is implemented. Now most people will only interview players with five balls star rating, and it takes less scouting points to find a 18 yo, 9+p player. As a result this might make tanking a stronger strategy than it currently is. And I won't like that...

Of course things might be more complicated. Maybe this will also stimulate a lower pick team to invest more scouting points... But clearly it would change drastically in scouting strategies.


Currently players with 5 balls star rating could have only 2 balls potential, so your suggestion could change a lot. Mind elaborating a bit on your rationale?

To be more specific, star rating has always been an assessment of current ability only. The grade when you interview is a more accurate version of this, hence why 5 star recruits never have less than an A- grade. But it has little if any correlation to potential, as potential is not considered when assigning an initial star rating.

Or... Maybe that's just the point of the actual draft system.
First scouting : is he good for an 18/19yo player ?
Then interview : how good can he become ?
That totally makes sense.

And to quote the game manual :
"Scouted once: Your scouts have seen this player play one game, and have provided the player's boxscore for that game. They are now able to give a more accurate assessment of his current skills. Scouting a player uses 1 scouting point."
It's just about the skills and not the potential. If you wanna know more, then spend more scouting points.

When scouts watch a game, they make an assessment not only of his current skills, but also of his potential, considering his physical attributes. For example, if they watch an outstanding college players, but undersized for his position, they will say that his potential is low because his skills won't translate well to NBA level.

Yes but there is no such thing as physical attributes in BB. There's only height and it just matters for training efficiency.

The current draft system makes not sense, and the first interview gives an information that is completely worthless. I was mistaken because I didn't think this could be so bad!

I don't agree, they both are good filters. First scouting you get rid of the low skills and then with interviews you can focus on high potentials. You need both of them to be 90% sure you choosed the right guys.
And it costs a lot of scouting points but that's part of the drafting strategy


Last edited by slamdunk9 at 8/2/2020 4:46:54 PM

Or... Maybe that's just the point of the actual draft system.

yeah, which is why the current draft is a waste of money