BuzzerBeater Forums

again if we cant train multiskilled players to 500k or more whats the point of the higher potentials

Last edited by zyler at 03/24/2010 16:44:41

Fromy my side no mercy for teams that earned tons of money during the last seasons and they're crying now simply because they don't earn anymore 500k/week but only 50k/week. I didn't read everything but I've seen often "multiskilled" word and I've only one thing to point out. Trying to build a good PF/SF takes time and a lot of matches lost but when I've a very multiskilled SF and I've to face a run&gun with a comboshoter guard playing in SF position my SF sucks it means that is better to have 3 players well skilled in js/jr/od in position PG/playmaker/SF instead of having a real multiskilled player probably that's the reason why a lot of teams don't waste money and time trying to buy "the perfect player"

Having said that, I'm now going to make a bold prediction: I predict there will never be a truly multiskilled 500k+ player. If 500k+ players are the handful of players in the game for which the salary formula produces the highest number, I would predict that monoskilled players who have been trained poorly will always dominate that list, and that it will be almost impossible to ever train a true multiskilled player to the same salary level as a monoskilled player. The multiskilled player would probably have more total pops and would be a heck of a lot more useful, but will probably never reach $500k. So the real answer to your question is that by training multiskilled players, you're getting your skill a lot more cheaply and avoiding this sort of problem.

Thanks for the quick reaction, as always..

Could you clearify something for me. Please correct me if im wrong..You are saying that poorly trained '500K' players will be the top earners in the future, and therefor multiskilled players will almost never earn more.

So, a multiskilled player can earn, lets say a fictive amount, maybe max something like 350k, because this 500k player is setting a virtual 'cap'. Will it therefor not possible to get a multiskilled 300k player with max MVP potential because the sum of skills will be more important for potential then salary? In other words: is a potential 10/11 still worth buying when you want to train a multiskilled player? If only salary will be the big deal to the cap in potential and not so much the amount of pops, and 500K will be the max in salary in the future, we are getting top multiskilled awesome players with max mvp potential and awfull monoskilled legendary 500k players who are worth nothing...If that is the case buying a MVP potential player would cost not less then a legendary one for multitraining, because it would be not possitble to pass by the mvp cap while multitraining..

Last edited by Maupster at 03/24/2010 17:06:33

again if we cant train multiskilled players to 500k or more whats the point of the higher potentials

Potential does not directly depend on salary levels. You can still train an all time great to his maximum potential, although he just won't reach the salary he would have reached before.

you are confusing an issue here... when we started retuning the salary formula we broke the fixed relationship between salary and skill, meaning you can't say that a potential corresponds to a fixed cap in salary, because the conversion from overall skill to salary is being tuned season to seaosn (in fact that was never strictly the case but that is a simplification people have been using). ...potential caps are fundamentally on skill not on salary.

Damn, i was mixing it all up wasnt i?

Its all clear to me now. Now i know this, i can easily say that i'm more a believer in the last changes. Thanks.

Salary is determined by market forces. It depends upon the player skill and the skills of everybody else in BuzzerBeater

Thank you so much for this comment as I think I have a much better understanding now that I understand that absolute skill sets have been decoupled from salary. How does that relate to the accuracy of salary calculators, however ?