Posted by chris_snid on 10/3/2010 11:32:00 AM (view original):
Come on people, this isn't the end all your making it out to be. If you want to see how Magic, jordan,bird,malone and wilt would fair against paul,kobe,durant,duncan and Howard please create a theme league or use Dream Teams. Open leagues are about team building and trying to win championships with a salary cap restriction. Lots of you people do this very well. I'm sure one of you will find the cookie cutter and rule the sim world again. I for one look forward to seeing all those unused player from the past.

open leagues are the first place most people start and most people originally come here to see "what if etc" not  as you say trying to win championships with a salary cap restriction - for the health of the site the open/default cap should be the one that appeals to the broadest audience - let theme leagues deal with the esoterica of building real teams

in any event now that I 've toyed with it a little bit more scrubs might be the bigger issue - and of course the fatigue standards have not changed nor has the ham fisted substitution logic

Posted by ashamael on 10/2/2010 4:40:00 PM (view original):
"What's everyone's problem?"

I already stated my problem.  Read before asking dumb questions.

"I don't have a problem putting together a team that seems interesting and realistic to me.  If you're expecting to have enough salary to sign five all-time greats, join a theme league."

I don't want to have to join a theme league (read:  slow filling if ever) to mess with the "What If?" concept.  I think we did right in raising salaries, but the final increase was too much.  Raise efg%.  Raise on rebounds.  Maybe make the small raise on higher usage players (though I think is what's causing most people's problems right now with getting enough offense).

And no offense, but you don't exactly have a lot of experience on this site.  For you to say you're having no problem putting a team together means nothing.  When long-time successful vets are having issues, then I'll tend to believe them more than a noob who talks a big game.

Posted by detlef on 10/3/2010 12:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by ashamael on 10/2/2010 4:40:00 PM (view original):
"What's everyone's problem?"

I already stated my problem.  Read before asking dumb questions.

"I don't have a problem putting together a team that seems interesting and realistic to me.  If you're expecting to have enough salary to sign five all-time greats, join a theme league."

I don't want to have to join a theme league (read:  slow filling if ever) to mess with the "What If?" concept.  I think we did right in raising salaries, but the final increase was too much.  Raise efg%.  Raise on rebounds.  Maybe make the small raise on higher usage players (though I think is what's causing most people's problems right now with getting enough offense).

And no offense, but you don't exactly have a lot of experience on this site.  For you to say you're having no problem putting a team together means nothing.  When long-time successful vets are having issues, then I'll tend to believe them more than a noob who talks a big game.

"What's everyone's problem?" was a rhetorical question, I did read all of the other posts.  And not to get in a ******* match, but I've been using this site since March 2003 whereas you've been using it since 2008 apparently (although, of course, you may be on a newer account).  Should we revisit the concept of who has more "experience on this site"?  Sure, I've been more baseball-focused the last few years (and I've never been the type of user to have more than one team of any sport at most times), but that doesn't mean I don't pay attention to the basketball sim and screw around with making teams every now and then.  Which brings me to my ultimate point:

One reason it gets so boring to make open league teams is because everyone uses these "cookie-cutter" teams.  You know what makes it easiest to make cookie-cutter teams?  Low salaries.  Think about it - if there were no cap, there would be pretty much only a few possible teams that you could have that would be competitive, right?  (i.e. having the all-time greats like Jordan filling out the roster) As you lower the cap (or raise salaries - same effect), you get more interesting and different combinations of players to try to piece something together within the restraints of the cap.   I don't mean to speak for everyone, but I can't see why anyone would be interested in playing a game where it's so easy to make a team (and thus everyone ends up making the same team that has no weaknesses).  I'd think that basketball fans would like to have to deal with having weaknesses like being a smallball team that doesn't rebound or block shots well, but shoots great from the outside and trying to match up with a team that's a slow-plodding half court team that dominates the boards.  With lower salaries, it's too easy to be good at everything.

Posted by longtallbrad on 10/3/2010 4:23:00 PM (view original):
Wow.  Salary for some of my go-to bench scrubs is up by 50%.  This is going to take a while.

Posted by felonius on 10/3/2010 1:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by detlef on 10/3/2010 12:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by ashamael on 10/2/2010 4:40:00 PM (view original):
"What's everyone's problem?"

I already stated my problem.  Read before asking dumb questions.

"I don't have a problem putting together a team that seems interesting and realistic to me.  If you're expecting to have enough salary to sign five all-time greats, join a theme league."

I don't want to have to join a theme league (read:  slow filling if ever) to mess with the "What If?" concept.  I think we did right in raising salaries, but the final increase was too much.  Raise efg%.  Raise on rebounds.  Maybe make the small raise on higher usage players (though I think is what's causing most people's problems right now with getting enough offense).

And no offense, but you don't exactly have a lot of experience on this site.  For you to say you're having no problem putting a team together means nothing.  When long-time successful vets are having issues, then I'll tend to believe them more than a noob who talks a big game.

"What's everyone's problem?" was a rhetorical question, I did read all of the other posts.  And not to get in a ******* match, but I've been using this site since March 2003 whereas you've been using it since 2008 apparently (although, of course, you may be on a newer account).  Should we revisit the concept of who has more "experience on this site"?  Sure, I've been more baseball-focused the last few years (and I've never been the type of user to have more than one team of any sport at most times), but that doesn't mean I don't pay attention to the basketball sim and screw around with making teams every now and then.  Which brings me to my ultimate point:

One reason it gets so boring to make open league teams is because everyone uses these "cookie-cutter" teams.  You know what makes it easiest to make cookie-cutter teams?  Low salaries.  Think about it - if there were no cap, there would be pretty much only a few possible teams that you could have that would be competitive, right?  (i.e. having the all-time greats like Jordan filling out the roster) As you lower the cap (or raise salaries - same effect), you get more interesting and different combinations of players to try to piece something together within the restraints of the cap.   I don't mean to speak for everyone, but I can't see why anyone would be interested in playing a game where it's so easy to make a team (and thus everyone ends up making the same team that has no weaknesses).  I'd think that basketball fans would like to have to deal with having weaknesses like being a smallball team that doesn't rebound or block shots well, but shoots great from the outside and trying to match up with a team that's a slow-plodding half court team that dominates the boards.  With lower salaries, it's too easy to be good at everything.

so detlef I'm not a noob - in fact I make you look the noob - I am however persona non gratis round these parts so must persist in the charade of this particular user handle - I suppose you can guess who I am and I agree with ash

since you've been here since 2003 I'll make my argument simple: before and after - there was a decision made to gauge the 42m cap to real life teams - before that there was a robust player population and growing popularity, after that, this.

as for cookie cutter teams, that's what theme leagues are for - since you've been around since 2003 you know that there is always a cookie, always and there will be in this release as well - the point is if you had lowered all salaries instead of raising them there would still be a new cookie - any reset would create a transition phase before a new cookie coalesced - if that's all you want it doesnt matter which way the salaries fluctuate

the way to get what you really want (and I agree it is desirable) is not to arbitrarily raise or lower salaries but rather to properly calibrate valuation for those stats the engine favors

Posted by ncih on 10/4/2010 5:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by felonius on 10/3/2010 1:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by detlef on 10/3/2010 12:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by ashamael on 10/2/2010 4:40:00 PM (view original):
"What's everyone's problem?"

I already stated my problem.  Read before asking dumb questions.

"I don't have a problem putting together a team that seems interesting and realistic to me.  If you're expecting to have enough salary to sign five all-time greats, join a theme league."

I don't want to have to join a theme league (read:  slow filling if ever) to mess with the "What If?" concept.  I think we did right in raising salaries, but the final increase was too much.  Raise efg%.  Raise on rebounds.  Maybe make the small raise on higher usage players (though I think is what's causing most people's problems right now with getting enough offense).

And no offense, but you don't exactly have a lot of experience on this site.  For you to say you're having no problem putting a team together means nothing.  When long-time successful vets are having issues, then I'll tend to believe them more than a noob who talks a big game.

"What's everyone's problem?" was a rhetorical question, I did read all of the other posts.  And not to get in a ******* match, but I've been using this site since March 2003 whereas you've been using it since 2008 apparently (although, of course, you may be on a newer account).  Should we revisit the concept of who has more "experience on this site"?  Sure, I've been more baseball-focused the last few years (and I've never been the type of user to have more than one team of any sport at most times), but that doesn't mean I don't pay attention to the basketball sim and screw around with making teams every now and then.  Which brings me to my ultimate point:

One reason it gets so boring to make open league teams is because everyone uses these "cookie-cutter" teams.  You know what makes it easiest to make cookie-cutter teams?  Low salaries.  Think about it - if there were no cap, there would be pretty much only a few possible teams that you could have that would be competitive, right?  (i.e. having the all-time greats like Jordan filling out the roster) As you lower the cap (or raise salaries - same effect), you get more interesting and different combinations of players to try to piece something together within the restraints of the cap.   I don't mean to speak for everyone, but I can't see why anyone would be interested in playing a game where it's so easy to make a team (and thus everyone ends up making the same team that has no weaknesses).  I'd think that basketball fans would like to have to deal with having weaknesses like being a smallball team that doesn't rebound or block shots well, but shoots great from the outside and trying to match up with a team that's a slow-plodding half court team that dominates the boards.  With lower salaries, it's too easy to be good at everything.

so detlef I'm not a noob - in fact I make you look the noob - I am however persona non gratis round these parts so must persist in the charade of this particular user handle - I suppose you can guess who I am and I agree with ash

since you've been here since 2003 I'll make my argument simple: before and after - there was a decision made to gauge the 42m cap to real life teams - before that there was a robust player population and growing popularity, after that, this.

as for cookie cutter teams, that's what theme leagues are for - since you've been around since 2003 you know that there is always a cookie, always and there will be in this release as well - the point is if you had lowered all salaries instead of raising them there would still be a new cookie - any reset would create a transition phase before a new cookie coalesced - if that's all you want it doesnt matter which way the salaries fluctuate

the way to get what you really want (and I agree it is desirable) is not to arbitrarily raise or lower salaries but rather to properly calibrate valuation for those stats the engine favors

The decision to make the $42M cap "real" teams was the death knell of this sim.

No one comes to a What-If Website to recreate the 1979 Denver Nuggets.