BuzzerBeater Forums

Yes, kinda like how primaries work depending on what your current build is. Secondaries like HA, DR, FT and STA would cost less than primaries.

My point is not to limit, but to give a fine. A bigman with quad 20 and 5 on the rest will perform much better than lets say quad 17 with 7-8, or even 10 the rest, so everyone will tend to build a monster, so what I try to achieve is varience, which will allow to build up players with various skills which are more or less equivalent in terms of performance, so some things they will do better while others-worse, but in overall, they'll lead to similar point difference vs totally average-skilled team. Think of salary limitations in the game. They are for reason.

Last edited by ig at 4/23/2019 10:51:18 PM

Exactly! Otherwise we could stick up with the original proposal. The fine for extermely high and combined skills comes to line up a bit the fact that thigns are not linear in BB, ehile the way we build our players IS linear!

The idea is good but not perfect

Imagine two teams at the end of round 6 with forms of:
A: WWWLLL
B: LLLWWW

Surely there is a bit of difference between the two of them

A has lost 3 matches against opponents all with 3 wins and definitely had done a harder job than B

For the solution I suggest BB can define fixed amount of points for each win at different levels

For example winning at 1st 2nd & 3rd rounds will be evaluated as 5pts for each win
4th 5th & 6th: 4pts
7th & 8th: 3pts
9th & 10th: 2pts
And any win between round 11 and 14 (or maybe even higher) would earn 1pt for the winner

Its obvious that you have to win almost every single match of yours but if you lose against an opponent with 9 wins at round 10, you'll lose only 2pts instead of 5 and still be hopeful to hit the mark



Last edited by .Amin. at 4/26/2019 5:56:39 AM

I really like this idea and I think it could be a very interesting addition to the game. That being said, I do think that the idea needs some modifications for it to realize its full potential.

Firstly, as some of the users have already mentioned, the distributions can't be done using only skill points. Because as you know of course, the weight of each skill for each position is different. So, I think the better way to go about this would be to give 5 Hall of Fame, 5 MVP, and 2 Superstar players to each manager. Each team must have at least 2 players in each position (2 PG, 2 SG, 2 SF, 2 PF, 2 C), and the manager can choose the position of the two remaining players on his/her own. The manager then is free to choose how he wants to distribute the potentials (5 HOF, 5 MVP, 2 SS) between the players. For example the manager can distribute the 5 HOF equally to all 5 positions (1 each), or he/she can choose to use all 5 on his big men inside (assuming he sets one of the two free positions to a big). This way, there would not be a certain number of skill points to be distributed. Instead, the managers can use their knowledge and use the cap potential that they're given to the best of their abilities to create their ideal team. Also, this way the weight of each skill for each position would be addressed.

Secondly, I think the point that Amin made is also a valid one, but not in the way that he proposed. He's got it kind of upside down As you win more, the stakes must get higher. The point system should not factor in which week it is. It should only consider how many wins each team has. What I'm saying looks something like this:
Wins vs teams with 0, 1, and 2 wins = 1 pt
Wins vs teams with 3, 4, and 5 wins = 2 pt
Wins vs teams with 6, 7, and 8 wins = 3 pt
Wins vs teams with 9, 10, and 11 wins = 4 pt
Wins vs teams with 12 wins or more = 5 pt (So this way, the team that is the last one standing, has more to lose)
This way, the stakes get higher as you win more, but there will also be a chance to close the gap with teams that have more points than you.

Thirdly, since this idea is based on the notion of finding the best tactical mind of the game, then I think all the chance factors must be eliminated, and all games should be played with absolutely identical conditions. For example, there should be no injuries. Also, an incident such as 2 starters of a team fouling out in the 3rd quarter while the other team has less than 10 fouls total should not happen. We all know that certain players have a tendency towards aggression and certain others don't. For this reason, I think a random aggression variable should be generated for each game in the beginning. So both teams should be fouling each other at around the same rate. Game shapes as you mentioned should be 9 for all players. I also think that the stamina, free throws, and the experience of all the players should be identical. Same goes for enthusiasm of course.

What you're saying about the managers choosing how they want to distribute the 900 skill points is actually entailed in my suggestion that I put forth.

The ranking system you mentioned, I'm not familiar with. Could you explain a bit more as to how it takes into account they difficulty of your opponents and how it values the points won against each?