|
Post by Johnny "B. Good" Stamos on Dec 16, 2008 16:51:55 GMT -5
I think that we can try to stretch out this draftees as long as possible before we do the switch.
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Dec 16, 2008 16:52:48 GMT -5
I wanted to start in 1965, mostly because that's something Ive never experienced. I actually kinda like the idea of starting in 1965 in like 2025 and just running straight through all the drafts.
|
|
|
Post by Rocky on Dec 16, 2008 16:53:10 GMT -5
I've just never enjoyed retros. It takes a lot of the fun out of it for me knowing how every player is gonna turn out. Now, if you make some stars busts and some shitty players stars, that might make it different. And really, it depends how far you go back. I don't understand this. We started this league one year ago with the first season in 2000. We knew what Kobe was going to become. The LBJ would be a beast. That KG would dominate... right? Kobe didn't become nearly as good as he should have. Shaq dominated far longer than people expected. TD aged horribly. Elton Brand aged better than any player ever has. None of this was expected, and I personally have zero interest in building teams around guys created by fellow GMs and then acting like I care about my team as much as I used to.
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Dec 16, 2008 16:54:03 GMT -5
Random idea. Use failed players over the last 20 or so years? Maybe Shammond Williams and Tyus Edney battle it out for top PG. Lenny Cooke or Nikolov Tshkitishvili? Something like that could work. It's not necessarily retro, and it's not necessarily fake. It gives name recognition, and some humor to the league. 20/10 Shawn Bradley? CHEAH! I like that someone like Jerome Beasley was a star for a couple years in BBS. I wouldnt mind going retro and having players that were scrubs be all stars. Thats what would make it fun.
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Dec 16, 2008 16:54:47 GMT -5
I've just never enjoyed retros. It takes a lot of the fun out of it for me knowing how every player is gonna turn out. Now, if you make some stars busts and some shitty players stars, that might make it different. And really, it depends how far you go back. I don't understand this. We started this league one year ago with the first season in 2000. We knew what Kobe was going to become. The LBJ would be a beast. That KG would dominate... right? Kobe didn't become nearly as good as he should have. Shaq dominated far longer than people expected. TD aged horribly. Elton Brand aged better than any player ever has. None of this was expected, and I personally have zero interest in building teams around guys created by fellow GMs and then acting like I care about my team as much as I used to. Ya, it doesnt make sense.
|
|
|
Post by Rocky on Dec 16, 2008 16:55:01 GMT -5
Paul Pierce became the best player in BBS.
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Dec 16, 2008 16:55:04 GMT -5
The retro is predictable argument holds no weight with me.
|
|
|
Post by noves on Dec 16, 2008 16:55:28 GMT -5
I've just never enjoyed retros. It takes a lot of the fun out of it for me knowing how every player is gonna turn out. Now, if you make some stars busts and some shitty players stars, that might make it different. Once again, this doesn't make sense to me. Even if you know MJ will be good, you never know how good. Maybe Barkley will be more dominant. Maybe Hakeem. I can start players out with similar ratings and 100 potential and they turn out different. I don't get why people always have this complaint. How does it not make sense? EVERYONE is going to think MJ is going to be a superstar. Everyone is going to have preconceived ideas about players, and while you're right about they will turn out differently, just because of their names, it's going to change the way teams and GM's value players. I've never had an experience with a retro league where I've enjoyed it. Maybe that'll change, I'm just saying, I don't see how it would really succeed for a long period of time. You'd have to really change it up so you have players from different years and different decades in each draft, and you couldn't have all the guys who were good in real life be good in the retro, otherwise it'd just be a bust.
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Dec 16, 2008 16:55:31 GMT -5
Paul Pierce became the best player in BBS. PP was easily better then Kobe. Predictable!
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Dec 16, 2008 16:56:07 GMT -5
Once again, this doesn't make sense to me. Even if you know MJ will be good, you never know how good. Maybe Barkley will be more dominant. Maybe Hakeem. I can start players out with similar ratings and 100 potential and they turn out different. I don't get why people always have this complaint. How does it not make sense? EVERYONE is going to think MJ is going to be a superstar. Everyone is going to have preconceived ideas about players, and while you're right about they will turn out differently, just because of their names, it's going to change the way teams and GM's value players. I've never had an experience with a retro league where I've enjoyed it. Maybe that'll change, I'm just saying, I don't see how it would really succeed for a long period of time. You'd have to really change it up so you have players from different years and different decades in each draft, and you couldn't have all the guys who were good in real life be good in the retro, otherwise it'd just be a bust. If someone is gonna value a poor simmer better because of his name, then that GM is an idiot.
|
|
|
Post by Johnny "B. Good" Stamos on Dec 16, 2008 16:56:07 GMT -5
The game doesn't know the name of the players its all random. Rudy Gay turned out to be shit and he was supposed to be pretty good. Like Spence said you really never know how players turn out.
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Dec 16, 2008 16:56:53 GMT -5
I have started players out with solid ratings and 100 potential and they take a shit. A lot of this has to do with RCs as well. Some players get stuck on teams that dont RC for shit. They never progress like they couldve.
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Dec 16, 2008 16:57:36 GMT -5
Plus, what leagues have others been in that went retro? Name the leagues.
|
|
|
Post by AllStar0608 on Dec 16, 2008 16:57:56 GMT -5
hahaha i think we all know what you want by reading your last 5 posts.
|
|
|
Post by AllStar0608 on Dec 16, 2008 16:58:06 GMT -5
Random idea. Use failed players over the last 20 or so years? Maybe Shammond Williams and Tyus Edney battle it out for top PG. Lenny Cooke or Nikolov Tshkitishvili? Something like that could work. It's not necessarily retro, and it's not necessarily fake. It gives name recognition, and some humor to the league. 20/10 Shawn Bradley? CHEAH! this actually sounds fun.
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Dec 16, 2008 16:58:30 GMT -5
Global ABCA where the same 5 teams win every year? Some shit league that lasted for a year? It wasnt a league like BBS I can guarantee that.
|
|
|
Post by noves on Dec 16, 2008 16:58:49 GMT -5
I'm not saying not to go retro, I'm just saying that you'd have to make sure that it's not exactly true to real life.
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Dec 16, 2008 16:59:56 GMT -5
I'm not saying not to go retro, I'm just saying that you'd have to make sure that it's not exactly true to real life. LOL, even if I wanted it to be exactly like real life, it'd be impossible.
|
|
|
Post by AllStar0608 on Dec 16, 2008 17:00:21 GMT -5
retro FTW!
|
|
|
Post by Rocky on Dec 16, 2008 17:00:25 GMT -5
Mike Dunleavy became a star. When Dunleavy was drafted last year, we didn't know where his NBA career was? I just think this whole "it isn't fun because I know what is going to happen" stuff is completely absurd and false. If you like fake players, fine, but there are a ton of changes that happen to NBA stars/scrubs. Who the hell is Ivan Chireav? Why does Rudy Gay suck? Why did Emeka and Josh Smith become top-5 players? Why the hell is DeJuan Blair incredible? DeRozan has amazing ratings, why isn't he a top-3 player? Why is Darko a star? Why does Mike Conley have average ratings but is a top PG? Why is Monta a dominant PG with bad handle (rating)? Fran Vazquez? WTF? How is TP still incredible? ETC ETC
The argument that "well, these guys haven't finished or started their careers but the retros have" doesn't work for me. As of now, we know what guys should be in the NBA. That is no different to me than someone having finished his career. The point is, this idea of consistency between what a career was and what their BBS career is/was is WRONG. If people like fake players then fine, but "it's too predictable" doesn't work for me as an argument against retro.
|
|
|
Post by AllStar0608 on Dec 16, 2008 17:00:44 GMT -5
I'm not saying not to go retro, I'm just saying that you'd have to make sure that it's not exactly true to real life. LOL, even if I wanted it to be exactly like real life, it'd be impossible. u could just cheat like play did in nbn2
|
|
|
Post by Rocky on Dec 16, 2008 17:01:14 GMT -5
Once again, this doesn't make sense to me. Even if you know MJ will be good, you never know how good. Maybe Barkley will be more dominant. Maybe Hakeem. I can start players out with similar ratings and 100 potential and they turn out different. I don't get why people always have this complaint. How does it not make sense? EVERYONE is going to think MJ is going to be a superstar. Everyone is going to have preconceived ideas about players, and while you're right about they will turn out differently, just because of their names, it's going to change the way teams and GM's value players. I've never had an experience with a retro league where I've enjoyed it. Maybe that'll change, I'm just saying, I don't see how it would really succeed for a long period of time. You'd have to really change it up so you have players from different years and different decades in each draft, and you couldn't have all the guys who were good in real life be good in the retro, otherwise it'd just be a bust. That's because it's Michael Jordan! And we all thought LBJ would be a superstar! And when a clear superstar fake player is created, we're going to think he is a superstar too!
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Dec 16, 2008 17:01:23 GMT -5
Im gonna do GM draftees for longer then I had planned, but I dont want to have a league full of fake players forever. Plus, I guarantee BBS going retro wont be like whatever bad experiences youve all had before.
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Dec 16, 2008 17:02:02 GMT -5
Mike Dunleavy became a star. When Dunleavy was drafted last year, we didn't know where his NBA career was? I just think this whole "it isn't fun because I know what is going to happen" stuff is completely absurd and false. If you like fake players, fine, but there are a ton of changes that happen to NBA stars/scrubs. Who the hell is Ivan Chireav? Why does Rudy Gay suck? Why did Emeka and Josh Smith become top-5 players? Why the hell is DeJuan Blair incredible? DeRozan has amazing ratings, why isn't he a top-3 player? Why is Darko a star? Why does Mike Conley have average ratings but is a top PG? Why is Monta a dominant PG with bad handle (rating)? Fran Vazquez? WTF? How is TP still incredible? ETC ETC The argument that "well, these guys haven't finished or started their careers but the retros have" doesn't work for me. As of now, we know what guys should be in the NBA. That is no different to me than someone having finished his career. The point is, this idea of consistency between what a career was and what their BBS career is/was is WRONG. If people like fake players then fine, but "it's too predictable" doesn't work for me as an argument against retro. What are you trying to say?
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Dec 16, 2008 17:02:16 GMT -5
LOL, even if I wanted it to be exactly like real life, it'd be impossible. u could just cheat like play did in nbn2 I do already.
|
|