BuzzerBeater Forums

BB Global (English) > Does the player market hinder user growth?

Does the player market hinder user growth?

Set priority
Show messages by
This Post:
00
288717.4 in reply to 288717.3
Date: 8/3/2017 9:30:54 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
117117
And Marin, it took you, what, 6 seasons?, to admit you completely messed up with Free Agency.


He has? I have a 26 year old $90k guard and a 29 year old $145k centre on a bot team in my league. Seems counterintuitive to admit a fault and not correct it.

From: Underwood

This Post:
00
288717.8 in reply to 288717.6
Date: 8/4/2017 8:20:39 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
8686
a) Give new team MUCH better players to start with, so the gap to the old teams and also the money they need to spend just to reach the salary floor is reduced.
More detailed suggestion about this is here: (286547.1)
b) Put randomly generated players with 25+ years and salary around 20-50k on the market. This helps much quicker than better draftees.


I might have been a little narrow-minded when I wrote it was the only solution. I like your suggestions (and I read the suggestion you refer to and strongly support it) and they would be nice additions to a number of changes this game is in need of. I still think better draftees and better training options is a must though:

Better training: I'm not saying that an over radical change is needed. The maximum speed we have through 1-position training right now is fine in my opinion. The thing we need to look at is alternatives to 1-position training. Because at the moment you don't really have a choice if you want valuable results. Why not increase the speed of 2- and 3-position training? It would give users the possibility to actually make a choice about how they want to develop their players: you could choose to develop 2 or 3 great players, or you can make the choice of developing a few more players at a time and they would actually be useable but not superstars.

Better draftees: This goes hand in hand with the above. If we have an option to actually develop quality players through 2-position training then we would need more quality draftees to do so.

This Post:
00
288717.11 in reply to 288717.9
Date: 8/4/2017 9:06:43 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
8686
This is exactly my point. Say you lower the penalty to 15%. You would actually be able to make pretty good players. They won't be as good as if they were trained with 1-position training, but they would be good enough to contribute, especially at lower levels.

- you get 6 players which look the same instead of 3

I don't see this as an issue. If you only have use for 2 of them, then you just sell the other 4. This would mean more players on the transferlist, and the manager would have money to buy players for the positions he hasn't trained.

- it takes longer to get to the same skillset because the training is slower
- you need to sacrifice 2 positions for training instead of 1 (2 guards for OD or PA, 2 big men for ID or IS or SB), making it harder to compete, because you need to hide 2 players on defense instead of 1 and you need to play a big man at a guard position or play with no flow
- you won't be able to cap higher potential players (i.e. the ones that will help you in higher divisions)

Well since this thread originally was about new users, this might not be that big of a problem. You don't need to cap high potential players at the lower levels. Capped starter/star/allstar potential players will do the trick. When you then need the higher potential guys you can switch to 2-position training, but that is a managerial choice which, in essence, is what this game is all about.

Increasing 2-position training speed would be a way to make new managers see progress faster and it would increase the number of mid-level players on the transferlist, which is what the OP is asking for.

Advertisement