BuzzerBeater Forums

BB Global (English) > B3

B3 (thread closed)

Set priority
Show messages by
This Post:
00
164600.92 in reply to 164600.91
Date: 12/7/2010 1:46:49 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
225225
My comment is semi-irrelevant because I think there is a large amount of "divine" players and your case (a) holds.

But I think your argument is severely mistaken and unfair in case (b). If there is a small amount of "divine" players, the teams that use them first have an advantage, no doubt. But it's not unfair. They have had the player when it didn't matter so much (e.g. the early rounds). Now they have a choice whether to keep him for the late rounds and pay the extra salary (as steve karenn suggests) or get rid of him, but no one else would be able to pick him up within the same season.

I think this suggestion isn't crazy, but it's a rather odd special case of the "freeze rosters" option, which I still prefer (e.g. especially in a format like: freeze rosters after week 3).

I also think that the "freeze rosters" option is superior.

But I don't see how option (b) can be viable in any form or shape. You're forgetting one critical aspect of the strategic options: "recycling" as many "divine" players as they can in the early rounds to make sure that they won't be surprised in later rounds. I don't see how this situation is superior.



Last edited by GM-kozlodoev at 12/7/2010 1:49:19 PM

"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."
This Post:
00
164600.93 in reply to 164600.92
Date: 12/7/2010 3:20:13 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
404404
My comment is semi-irrelevant because I think there is a large amount of "divine" players and your case (a) holds.

But I think your argument is severely mistaken and unfair in case (b). If there is a small amount of "divine" players, the teams that use them first have an advantage, no doubt. But it's not unfair. They have had the player when it didn't matter so much (e.g. the early rounds). Now they have a choice whether to keep him for the late rounds and pay the extra salary (as steve karenn suggests) or get rid of him, but no one else would be able to pick him up within the same season.

I think this suggestion isn't crazy, but it's a rather odd special case of the "freeze rosters" option, which I still prefer (e.g. especially in a format like: freeze rosters after week 3).

I also think that the "freeze rosters" option is superior.

But I don't see how option (b) can be viable in any form or shape. You're forgetting one critical aspect of the strategic options: "recycling" as many "divine" players as they can in the early rounds to make sure that they won't be surprised in later rounds. I don't see how this situation is superior.


It means that basically in the late round the teams will arrive with the final structure of their roster that they structured during the course of the season,because the best divine players would be out of the game

So,the team would be forced to choose at the start of the season if they want to have the salary monster,and they should be able to build a winning team knowing that large part of their resources are gone for salary monster,or if they build a more equilibrated team(in terms of salary,of course),renouncing to the salary monster.This is exactly the way to reward the mid-term management of the team,because divine trick would became a negligible factor in the late round,when the best teams directly face off each other

This Post:
00
164600.94 in reply to 164600.93
Date: 12/7/2010 3:29:33 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
225225
It means that basically in the late round the teams will arrive with the final structure of their roster that they structured during the course of the season,because the best divine players would be out of the game

If this is the desired result of the policy (as I think we all agree), one can just introduce a B3 transfer deadline, and be done with it.

"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."
This Post:
00
164600.95 in reply to 164600.94
Date: 12/7/2010 3:49:03 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
404404
It means that basically in the late round the teams will arrive with the final structure of their roster that they structured during the course of the season,because the best divine players would be out of the game

If this is the desired result of the policy (as I think we all agree), one can just introduce a B3 transfer deadline, and be done with it.

I care about the desired result of the policy,not the way we reach it

B3 transfer deadline surely is a good idea,if someone can find better ways we can use them


Last edited by Steve Karenn at 12/7/2010 3:53:58 PM

This Post:
00
164600.96 in reply to 164600.94
Date: 12/7/2010 3:49:40 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
3232
I suggest - If you buy some player in time B3, then you can sell him only after 4weeks. In this case you need pay an extra salary for this monster, and it ruin your team economy or you bancrupt. This mean if you buy this monster players you can your team put back in 2nd division or become weakest 1div. team.

I think that frozen rooster hurts little contry teams with weak national championship. Maybe they dont need C with 200k salary or SG with 100k salary in first weeks of season. but they can buy it and keep it for B3 and Cup final/League PO in midlle of season.

This Post:
00
164600.97 in reply to 164600.96
Date: 12/7/2010 4:15:34 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
4040
Or there might be a salary cap for the team lineup which would be the same for everyone. So if it would be 1M and you bought a 500k center, you have just 500k at disposal for everyone else. That sounds to me more like a multiskill issue than like a NT monster event thing.

This Post:
00
164600.98 in reply to 164600.97
Date: 12/7/2010 4:21:15 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
404404
Or there might be a salary cap for the team lineup which would be the same for everyone. So if it would be 1M and you bought a 500k center, you have just 500k at disposal for everyone else. That sounds to me more like a multiskill issue than like a NT monster event thing.

I dislike this idea
Everyone had to have the team that he is able to afford

From: Rycka
This Post:
00
164600.99 in reply to 164600.98
Date: 12/7/2010 4:53:41 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
272272
i cant suggest anything cause its just 256 teams competing?? who cares about you?

This Post:
00
164600.100 in reply to 164600.98
Date: 12/7/2010 5:47:58 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
4040
Or there might be a salary cap for the team lineup which would be the same for everyone. So if it would be 1M and you bought a 500k center, you have just 500k at disposal for everyone else. That sounds to me more like a multiskill issue than like a NT monster event thing.

I dislike this idea
Everyone had to have the team that he is able to afford


Why?

Advertisement