BuzzerBeater Forums

I'm sorry to be harsh but I find this thread a bit silly. Prices are exactly what managers are willing to pay for those players. The more in-game money there is, the more expensive the players will be. I always think the players I sold should have more expensive but, at the same time, I always think the players I bought should been cheaper. Did I totally misunderstand the topic?

Real talk.

But another aspect of this Topic would be how the Prices influence the game for us Managers. In my opinion it is clear that high Prices lead to a Situation where the leagues become static as promited Teams have no Chance to buy the Players necessary to Keep up with the competition - which is pretty bad, as those treadmill Managers might and will become frustrated.

I think there is a mutual influence, I will try to explain what I mean.

Let's start from the situation you stated where market prices are very high, so high that no one can sell their players and no one can buy them. The best teams will stay at the top... for a few seasons but their players will age. During that time, all teams will earn money, or worst case scenario stay with a stable economical situation as the game doesn't allow you to lose money. The average teams, not being able to get better by buying players, will train their own players. This will affect the market in two ways: more players avaible due to the widespread training and relatively lower prices (not really lower but as teams have more money, they can afford more expensive players). Within a few seasons, the best teams which didn't have a economy or which didn't train players will have troubles staying at the top.

Let's be honest and say that the above is very simplified version of the actual variations but it doesn't mean that a simple model can't modelize a real situation. If you like mathematics and want a more formal proof of concept, I suggest you read Alan Turing's works (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing#Pattern_formation_and_mathematical_biology) which also include some non-living patterns.

That's being said, it's not a reason not to speak about it.

Last edited by Nico4nicolas at 6/18/2015 5:25:50 AM

The average teams, not being able to get better by buying players, will train their own players.

That is your wish, but by no means is it necessarily true for the "average" manager. It could be true for managers that are a little bit masochistic, but not for the majority of managers the way training currently works. The huge expense, the illogical structure and slow pace of training will lead most "average" managers to avoid training at all costs. No one likes to beat his head against a brick wall, except of course a masochist.

They are making training the essential centerpiece of the game without reforming it, just forcing it upon us. That will just force a lot of managers out the door.

Training can be a challenge, to be sure, but not remotely an insurmountable (or head-beating-against-wall) one.
And then, as a result, you get all these customized players that you built specifically for your team.
For me, that's one of the best parts of the game.

Another amazing thing to me about BB is that every single player that isn't a scrub has been trained up an intentional way by another manager, or collection of managers, from the thousands of teams all across the world over the seasons. Some kid in North Dakota could draft a player, train up his ID, then sell him to a guy in Malaysia, who builds up his Passing, and then sells him to a lady in Germany, who trains him on OD, and then a professor from Iceland picks the player up off the transfer list, and rounds him out with JS, ID, and RB.

Seriously, it would make a cool documentary.

But more to the point, if it is the case that the more and more managers aren't training, then I'm glad, because I always incorporate it into my team and that will give me an edge. If you are wrong, and it is not case, I'm still glad, because then there will be more high quality players on the transfer list to choose from.

I actually agree with Lemon here. I don't think training is under powered and really enjoy that aspect of the game, even though it is pretty slow. (I've had my main trainee for almost 3 seasons and 8 or so months is a pretty long time in real life

But one thing training is not is flexible. Its very difficult to train a team to play how you want it to, since you can only really focus on one or two positions at a time and one or two skills a week. I don't really mind it but it is impossible to shape an entire team through through training.

So I think that if training is the focus going forward you need to allow people to train different kind of players simultaneously and you need to make it easier/more rewarding to train lower potential players, because, even if that's a misconception, lower potential players don't get enough love.

Tbh. potential less than All-Star is utter trash and its not worthwhile training those guys (one could make an argument for "Star"-SFs...). To me low-potential players are just junk data and could be removed from the game.

So I think that if training is the focus going forward you need to allow people to train different kind of players simultaneously and you need to make it easier/more rewarding to train lower potential players, because, even if that's a misconception, lower potential players don't get enough love.

Too logical.

Better that they continue to limit your ability to train to just one kind of player and to just one kind of skill, because that's how real basketball teams work, eh? No coach in his right mind would consider training all his players in the skills that they need.

(Sarcasm font off).