Posted by garyman on 10/23/2010 11:30:00 PM (view original):
Building teams is a pain in the butt now. You end up w/ guys you don't like or don't even know on your team just to get enough minutes.

New salaries = fail

And I don't want to hear about how we had time to check if they were good or not. After the 2nd or 3rd pre-release version, real life got busy for me. Not even to mention the fact that it's not our jobs to make sure the thing is good. Someone should've tested it and made some teams before it was finalized.

Completely and absolutely agree, we tried to give some input but I dont work for WIS.  You know who does and I'm stunned they are not willing to tweak it

No one comes to a What-If website to build a "real" NBA team.

There are some real NBA teams (85 Lakers, 86 Celtics) that YOU CAN'T BUILD UNDER THE CURRENT SALARIES.

The starting five players that WIS listed in their ad (61-62 Robertson, 88-89 Jordan, 61-62 Chamberlain) (don't remember all team players) cost OVER $50M JUST FOR THE STARTING FIVE PLAYERS.

I have not seen the ad in awhile.  It was probably removed for embarrassment.

I was a part of at least five leagues that have died since the delay of the 09-10 players and the new salaries.  Another is on life support.

It is just pathetic and sad how clueless WIS is over this issue.

"No one comes to a What-If website to build a "real" NBA team."

Exactly.  That's what theme leagues are for (challenges).  I'm personally pretty much done with the whole idea of a "challenge."  I've already proved anything and everything I ever needed to prove, both in open and theme leagues (which is nothing; it's the internet for crying out loud), so at this point, I just build teams that excite me.  There's nothing about the current $42M cap that excites me.  I've dropped the ODL, which is by far my favorite league on this site, because of this.  I've joined a $57M league, a cap that I've never had any desire to play in.

But bitchin' and moanin' about it ain't going to change anything, so I'll play the leagues I want to play in until my credits run out.  I might do an OL at some point, but if I do, it's because I found a way to make it using mostly favorite players.

I agree that a change was needed, and that the salaries needed to be a lot more balanced than they were previously, but what we have now is no fun what-so-ever. I am having probably my best season ever, but it just sucks to see someone who wasn't even on the allstar team that year be my team MVP. I'm sorry, but that is just not any fun what-so-ever. If you do put one all star on your team, you have to take one other player that just completely sucks, or a string of really bad players. I'm sorry, but putting together a team of scrubs is just not that appealing and I think whatifsports is going to realize that when the lack of teams starts to show. I'm typically a positive guy, and don't come on these boards to complain, but the new change was not thought through very well at all.
I have played in baseball, hockey and football on whatifsports as well, but found basketball the most fun. If this is the lack of interest this company is showing in basketball, I'm afraid they've lost me in all the leagues.

ashamael,

Could list your points you would like see changed with the salaries?  I would love to hear your thoughts.

My List would be:

1.  Reduce the cost of MINUTES.

2.  Increase cost to:
     a) eFG%
     b) OREB%
     c) DREB%
     d) AST%
     e) USE%
     f) POINTS

If we lay out our suggestions (instead of just complaining that something does not work) then we should have better chance at getting the improvements we are looking for.

I've done this in multiple threads.  I'm done wasting energy on trying to improve this site, because that's all it is:  wasted energy.

ODL on life support, gymrat on life support, bowis? EOL? nighty night - oddly enough the only long standing themer that seemed to fill like normal was.....

wait for it.....

wait for it....


funky52!! draw your own conclusions

The progressives also seem to be doing fine - I suspect because salaries don't play much of a factor in team-building.

Posted by solson on 10/28/2010 11:09:00 AM (view original):
ashamael,

Could list your points you would like see changed with the salaries?  I would love to hear your thoughts.

My List would be:

1.  Reduce the cost of MINUTES.

2.  Increase cost to:
     a) eFG%
     b) OREB%
     c) DREB%
     d) AST%
     e) USE%
     f) POINTS

If we lay out our suggestions (instead of just complaining that something does not work) then we should have better chance at getting the improvements we are looking for.

Solson we done this, they are not changing it.  Beleive me I can be very diplomatic and they are not changing a thing.

Everything in #2 is pretty much done-that was the last update.  What they did not do was #1.  Many threads have addressed this.

As usual, what you have are players telling WIS how to genuinely make their product better.  WIS responds with "Quit whining"!

Okay, I give.  One more time:

The current salary structure would be perfect if they hadn't done the across-the-board salary increase(s). 

*The biggest areas of need to be boosted from the previous version were efg% and reb%.  And threes (efg% alone wouldn't take care of that).

*Usage% didn't need a boost.  You already were wasting money once you surpassed a certain amount of usage.

* They shouldn't have used ts% in the formula since no player is going to get anywhere near their IRL ftas without building a possession penalty hitting team (usually individual penalties). 

*They should include tov% and fouled% and show us what these numbers are, instead of leaving us in the dark as they have done now.

If they were going to keep the same engine, they should have raised the costs of the things that were too cheap/effective (reb/threes) and decreased the cost of things that were too expensive/ineffective (defense).  They did this for the most part.  Then increased the cost for usage% (I still disagree with this one).  And then they did an across-the-board increase - at least twice.  I think probably more like three or four times.  


If you're going to come to a "what-if" site, you should be able to put together teams that are a little better than some of the greatest championship teams (80s celtics, 80s lakers, 90s bulls, etc).  And by a little better, I mean a team total salary of a couple million more than what the real team costs.  As it stands, you can't even put together some of the all-time greatest teams.  What is exciting about that?  If I want a so-called challenge, I'll play a theme league.  That's what they are there for (consequently I love theme leagues).  But if I want to do something crazy, I'll join an OL.  Or I would have.  Can't no more.  That's why I've built teams that will probably win 65+ in OLs but haven't played them.  They're not interesting to me.  I have 13 free teams (or will once I cash in GC).  I haven't entered a single team since the new players came out.

Actually, I take that back.  I made a $57M one.  That league has 7 players in it.  So, yeah, it ain't filling no time soon.

/yawn

peace.

Agreed.  The 85 Lakers and 86 Celtics should cost about $38M.

All:

I'm still new to this site, and have only had a few teams, but have been reading the boards, and it seems to me that part of the problem is that there just aren't enough coaching options.  I haven't really seen this touched upon here...

 I know this goes well beyond the current update, but no matter what they do with salary structure, position effectiveness, etc., there will still be some limited combination of players that will give the greatest chance of success, and these players will become the heart of 'cookie cutter' teams.  By altering the salaries, they just changed which players would fit into the mold, and now we have to figure them out again.  ...but it would basically be the same formula of efg%, usg%, reb, etc., that makes for a successful team in this engine.  Once you know that, it comes down to finding the right scrubs to fill in the gaps of your team, and that just doesn't sound like much fun to me.  (especially if almost all players are scrubs if salaries are too high!)  I am now enjoying learning the Gridiron Dynasty part of this site--not so much for the iterative nature of the seasons, which I do like, but more so for the game planning options.  

Here, it seems like once you've finished drafting, your team's fate is already predetermined--at least to the extent that you can skilfully juggle the minutes of your back-ups (how is that fun?).  Why not add more sophisticated contingencies for coaching--defenses that are player-specific, more choices for strategy, etc.  On another note, the addition of technical fouls would be great--maybe we wouldn't see so many Rodmans!!  The GM function is interesting but the 10% penalty makes these options prohibitive, and almost like admitting defeat because you're sacrificing that much in minutes or some aspect of scoring, defense, etc.  Anyway increasing game-by-game strategy options, it adds the need for some intelligence on a daily basis, and success goes beyond knowing the 'right players' when drafting.  Just my $0.02...

Technical fouls weren't good at all (they just added unnecessary randomness).