BuzzerBeater Forums

The older, better but not as trainable thing is one I've been in favor of for quite some time. I simply have no reason at all to spend scouting points because I'm not getting anyone reasonably trainable and I can't get anyone to play even backup roles in anything approaching a competitive game. I think the number of high potential 18 year olds is what is usually lamented, but I think there should be more solid players rather than more winning lottery tickets.

If there'd be a way to fix it so it depends what level (top league, II, etc.) I might agree to it, but as it's being suggested now, I couldn't go for this. I'm in D.V, and the idea of someone in my league, or even in D.IV, should I promote, drafting a player with 20k salary in my league would completely discourage me from even trying. Part of the fun in the game, especially in these lower leagues, is in the training of your players so that you won't end up trying your hardest only to go 0-22 in league play. Drafting three guys of 10k+ salary on my way to D.IV would be the sort of thing that makes me wonder why I would bother investing hours of my time into training for the future, and why I would bother investing hours of my time scanning the transfer lists for just the right guy to fill a needed position in my squad, when I can just figure out my lineups this season, wait for the draft, pick up a couple 10k+ salary players and buy the empty positions I need to fill so I can just train game shape all season.

Maybe it would be okay drafting more highly skilled players in the upper divisions (D.I/D.II), but especially at the lower levels, I think this sort of idea would compromise everything that we've come to know about the game, especially when half the D.V teams would be filled with 10k-salaried players within a couple of seasons and make it that much harder on newer teams who're showing up with maybe one decent player out of eighteen, destined to lose to even the bot-teams by that point.

On top of that, it would be another thing closing the gap between the top tier teams and D.IV, V, and VI teams, which would make planning for a National Team strategy change and would possibly lead to a lot deeper bot runs, and if fixing teams' starting rosters by improving players' starting skills to stop that problem would require a change in the setup of the economy to avoid driving new teams into crippling debt from the very start.

However, if this were to be kept for the higher divisions, then one of two things would happen:
1. The market would be even more overrun with higher-salary players, and it would cause more market instability.
2. The distance between top tier teams and lower divisions would widen, and teams that promote would likely struggle more.

So in conclusion, I'm against this idea.

Last edited by Speede at 6/5/2014 3:42:54 PM

I suggested this before but maybe you can really consider increasing the maximum skill level to at least Strong.

What about intorducing some new option (similar to "scouting combine" and group demonstration")?
For example, paying 10 scouting points, a new option that allow you to see one skill (that you can choose) for each 48 players?
This will not affect the market or change the draft system, and makes the choice a little more rational and less random.

It wouldn't be a good idea to make the prospects better or worse depending on level of division.

That said, I don't see any down side to the lower levels by having the ability to draft a higher skilled player. You too would be able to pull a really good player too if you invested in the draft so I don't see how it would be unfair or cause for discouragement. You could still train at the lower levels and if done correctly it would offer you a chance to be competitive sooner as you climb the divisions. You can never train enough guys to fill your roster, you will always need the TL to find complimentary players that you don't have to train. So that aspect is unaffected other than it not being the only way to build a team at the higher levels.

IMO

If you compare the BB draft to the NBA draft, the biggest difference is that in BB, the players have no incentive to show you what their skills are. If we tweaked things, it would be easier to see skills and harder to see potential. That way people who invest in scouting can get good potential and those who don't still know what the field looks like from a skill POV.

What I would love to see is this:
- Do away with the "ball system."
- Generate player ages (18yo-21yo) and potential randomly. Then generate skills randomly with 18yos up to 7, 19yos up to 8, 20yos up to 9, 21yos up to 10.
- Change the draft screen so that each player has 3 pieces of info: a potential rating [EDIT to delete extraneous info] with a margin of error from 100% to 0% (18yos start with 100%, 19yos 90%, 20yos 80%, and 21yos 70%), an average of their stat line from games you've seen them play, and a number of games seen.
- Add a salaried scout to the staff. Better staff decreases the range of error more per viewing (say minimal=8% and world-renowned=22%).
- Over the course of the season have prospect games.
--------- Divide 50 prospects randomly into 5 teams of 10. (50 to make it even and to let some players not get chosen - also a draft reality.)
--------- Have each team play 4 games over the course of the season. Each game is played at a neutral site with Base/M2M tactics, 7 GS, 5 Enth and a blank lineup. (If you run 1 game per week that's 10 games overall, so skip ASW, Playoffs and Week 1.)
--------- Make each game cost $5k to send your scout to, which reveals the box scores and adds precision to the evaluation of players' potential.
- At the end of the season, the top scorer, rebounder, passer, and defender of each team are named and their game averages are released. Additionally, they have 40% removed from the margin of error in their potential estimate.

So at the end of the season, your draft board would look something like this:

Prospect 14: HT 6'1", AGE 19, POT Allstar (32% error), Games Watched 4
SG MIN 37, FG 8.1 - 21.3, 3FG 1.5 - 3.1, FT 0.2- 0.9, OR 1.3, RB 4.2, AST 2.3, TO 0.2, STL 1.6, BLK 0.3, PF 2.0, PTS 17.9

So you'd know something about player skills relative to the rest of the class and have a clue that your player could be starter-superstar potential.

You could even let the neutral sites be decided by the 10 lowest pre-season CR and give the hosting team a free scouting and a bonus accuracy boost.

Something like this would add real strategy to the draft and create an engaging new dimension to gameplay.

Last edited by rhyminsimon at 6/19/2014 7:12:22 PM

All of this may be one of the better suggestions I have read in a long time. Well thought out.

it would be easier to see skills

Sounds like you need my patented Draft Box Score - Player Skill correlation analysis results formulae!

All new and now longer lasting, this formula will give your player stats some much needed confidence, all by simply analysing the box score!

Guarenteed or your money back! - Which is nothing, so yer you get nothing back.

(257837.1)

So, yer.... :) happy days! Look actually reading your post was good, its a good idea. Personally, I would first like to know from BB how the box score is generated. Do they run a series of pretend games with the players from the draft and then post the box scores? I dont believe that this is so. So first of all, I would like the box scores to be generated form an actual game.
And perhaps like you suggested, from many games. and supply the box score 'averages' for that player.

but otherwise im pretty happy with the way the draft is. :)

These are good points, draft should change. Right now the only reason to invest in it, is finding 5 ball potential players and sell them. That's sad. For teams playing in higher divisions is almost impossible drafting a 3k player and train him. With a 20 yo player with 20k salary would be possible instead. Average investment in scouts in my league is 625$ per week, veryvery sad.

@ Coach Regan: your work is great, but i think we need more informations about draftees, right now there is too uncertainty about this. And then, as you said, we are sure that box-scores are reliable? And if they are, 15 minutes stats are a good statistic-sample? i dont think so

thanks for that.
yer certainly the thing i noticed with box scores, was that players played a minimum of 20, and max of 40 mins for their box score (from my memory).
but still.... only 1 box score? an average of 4 games would be much better. and knowing that it came from a BB game engine game would be nice as well.

Secondly
I know a lot of people don't like the draft, its just that there are so many people out there who do use it and use it successfully.... If everyone who played BB could not succeed at the draft, then yer, there is a problem... but there are just too many people who know how to draft and use their draftee's successfully.

So just a few comments.....

is finding 5 ball potential players and sell them.

- training 4 and 5 ball potential 18 and 19 year olds is still a viable option? don't you think?

For teams playing in higher divisions is almost impossible drafting a 3k player and train him.

- Its harder, but not impossible. the main reason why its harder is because the top league teams tend to also be in the cup longer, thus losing many weeks of scrimmages where training minutes are easier. This isnt a problem of the draft, this is a choice that top league managers need to make.... train, league, cup, managing minutes etc etc.

With a 20 yo player with 20k salary would be possible instead

If they were going to have 20 year olds in the draft, i couldnt see them being more than $10k salary.