BuzzerBeater Forums

The example of the match cited in the previous post is decisive, for a match in which the total difference in points is 8, there cannot be such a high difference in the number of fouls committed. All this leads to a tremendous difference in free throws, conceived in real life as referee help to win a game.

In the above game it was Look Inside vs RnG, so you would expect the former to draw more FT's. If I counted right 5 fouls / 10 FT's were also intentional at the end of the game. It's still a large difference, but it does occasionally happen in real life, e.g:

(https://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/201703240IN...)
(https://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/201911050CH...)

Whether it happens too much in BB I don't know, I'm quite new. If someone has analysed a large sample of games that would provide useful information. But whenever I've seen the topic discussed previously, someone just posts one or two games and says it happens too much.


Regarding individuals fouling out, the main problems are we tell the coach to keep them playing if they get in foul trouble, and that we need to play them 48 mins/game for training.

Looking at the NBA PF's per 36:

(https://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2022_per_...)

A lot of players would be fouling out regularly if they had to do the same. One answer is to say BB is not the same as real basketball and reduce fouling to unrealistically low levels to compensate. Or maybe players should adjust in game, if they get in foul trouble they try harder to avoid fouling (but play worse defensively).

A more complex solution would be to alter other aspects of the game, like training. Or maybe it's us who are at fault for trying to give our trainees 48 mins in one game, rather than spreading it out over the week. I assume the new stamina changes will push teams towards this, so it might be worth seeing what effect that has.

(118349447)

cup game against a bot and my PG/C fouled out against a 6K player. It happens a lot in blow out game or against bots that the winning team has 1 or even more players getting a lot of fouls which is crazy, especially when the same players when facing human managers with much better players make 1-3 fouls only. It definitely needs to be fixed

I mean, his name is "Butcher", what did you expect ?

Or maybe players should adjust in game, if they get in foul trouble they try harder to avoid fouling (but play worse defensively).

That's the point. When a player is in fouls trouble he should play much less well defensively to avoid more fouls (that doesn't mean he won't make fouls anymore). That could force the teams to have a better bench and to use more "Sit them" in case of foul.

Moreover, but maybe it's already the case, an agressive player should be a better defender than a non-agressive one. That should be the advantage of them.

Joe

This. This would make much more sense than the current situation.
I wouldn't be shocked if an aggressive player was a better defender, and the more fouls he has, the less effective he becomes defensively because he has to refrain himself from being too aggressive. That would make sense, and aggressive players could be worth it for managers that can accept this kind of defensive effectiveness "volatility" across games.

It would be much more realistic than the situation as it is currently, where it looks like some players enter the court with a god damn battleaxe and get sent to the dressing room after 15 minutes repeatedly.

Last edited by Veoz at 1/21/2022 9:38:04 AM

That was going to be my perspective as well. In general 90% of managers use "let them play" but also complain when players foul often or foul out.

In BB One of the most important issues is training.

it is one of the things that allows you to win at a sporting or economic level and the rule is clear, a player has to play 48 minutes in his position.

Because of how the game engine is made, the most feasible is to put the player in 1 match for 48 minutes.

Otherwise you will lose 1 player if you try to train him in more than 1 match (if you do a Unipositional train).

That said, given that the game engine does not allow many alternatives to make training efficient, the aggressive factor must be taken into account when training.

What would happen if people didn't buy those players with the aggressive factor?

I hope they renew the issue of fouls or at least that some BB- can comment on this issue since we have 2 threads in the forum (https://www.buzzerbeater.com/community/forum/read.aspx?thr...)

and the people have to be heard.

Have a good day




Last edited by Tico at 1/23/2022 9:22:41 AM

I fully agree with this.

If the issue is that aggressive players get fouled out too quickly in competitive games, the easy solution is to use "sit them" instead of "let them play" and they'll play 25-30' in most games.

If the issue is that aggressive players get fouled out before completing 48' of training, my opinion is that it is good for the game. As it happens in real life, where many top picks in the NBA draft don't end up being good players because they have long-term injuries, because they can't stand the pressure or because they don't have a good lifestyle, the way that Buzzerbeater imitates this is through fouls. Or would we prefer 1-season injuries or brutal skill/performance drops for no reason? That would also be realistic.

Not all 18 HOF players should be able to grow at the same pace, and quick ejections are one of the few ways to achieve this and therefore introduce some degree of uncertainty in the game. Uncertainty is at the core of BB (and of real basketball) and I believe it is one of the keys to its long-term success. Aggressive players should be (and I believe they already are) cheaper than non-aggressive players because the buyer assumes a risk.




Last edited by Darkonako at 1/24/2022 5:55:27 AM

If the issue is that aggressive players get fouled out too quickly in competitive games, the easy solution is to use "sit them" instead of "let them play" and they'll play 25-30' in most games.

Except that it's not realistic at all. BB is meant to be realistic, as realistic as it can in terms of GE.
Take player X who plays for team Y in NBA (real world). In a given game, he has 3 fouls in the first quarter. He gets benched then plays again in Q2 and, hopefully he calmed down and will still be able to play in Q3 and Q4 if needed. This makes total sense.

In BB, some of the most aggressive players will be benched, then play again in Q2, make one more foul, which will send them back to the bench, and he'll most likely make one more foul in Q3 before being sent out in Q4. Total minutes played could very well be under 20 even though he got benched, and this is because under the current GE, aggressive players do not adapt at all, which is pure nonsense.

My point is, with a very aggressive players you have the two following options :

1) "sit them" and he'll eventually foul out late in the game, after playing like 20 minutes
2) "let them play" and he'll foul out after 20 minutes, that is, in the middle of Q2

Neither of these options make any sense, specifically when you consider the fact that aggressive players foul out early in the game repeatedly.