BuzzerBeater Forums

ok all things are already the case ;) But when you say is this what he had in mind, while understanding him and capturing his thread to post your ideas about just slightly related stuff you can come to the conclusion that you didn't understood him.

Last edited by CrazyEye at 10/24/2011 5:55:30 PM

I think you only focused on the less important part of what I wrote.
You have focused that it is the user's fault.

The main thing you missed here is that I suggested the game should give the user the ability to set exact auction timing.
Then, it is the user's fault.

Still there could be cases like the one described in your example, what I missed writing in my suggestion is that the players that will be available for a game will be set upon auction-time & scheduled game-time.
Meaning, when one set an auction-time, the game will see on which games scheduled this player will be available and for which team. Upon it the roster for that game will be set.

Now that I think of it, it sound that this part is irrelevant to the first part...

IMHO you can set auction time, 3 exactly days after you put a player in TL, that´s what i did thinking that they should play the game...

Good to know...
I didn't yet sell to many players and never seen that there is that correlation. I'll pay more attention in the next auction I'll raise.
Thanks.

I believe the right way to deal with it is as follows.
Auction time is to be set by the USER!

This is already the case since the beginning of this game. There may be some delay due to last-minute bid wars. In addition, the BB's may choose to extend all transfers (for example, if they are affected by a planned service break).

What I suggest is that:
a) The team that caused it will not get any training minutes (I guess this is so anyhow).
b) The other team will get training minutes upon some formula.
For example an easy formula will be:
Starters - 36 minutes.
Backups - 10 minutes.
Reservers - 2 minutes.

And this is exactly how it actually goes. There are however limitations such that you cannot guarantee 48 minutes in a single position by setting a player as starter, backup, and reserve.


Last edited by GM-WallyOop at 10/25/2011 12:12:52 AM

I believe the right way to deal with it is as follows.
Auction time is to be set by the USER!

This is already the case since the beginning of this game. There may be some delay due to last-minute bid wars. In addition, the BB's may choose to extend all transfers (for example, if they are affected by a planned service break).

First, nice to know (already I already been answered with this info. Anyhow, thanks.
What I suggested afterwards is that the available players for a game will be upon aiction time comparing to the expected game time.
Meaning, in case the auction had been set to Sunday at 16:00, and the game was set to Sundat at 15:00, the player will be set at the auction settings to play at the current owner team, no matter what happens in the auction itself. [Basically this was the main point that I've meant in my first message]
The player could be available fot the purchaser team only a full day after the auction ended (for example).
This is not hard to change, and will make this handle it more reasonable.

What I suggest is that:
a) The team that caused it will not get any training minutes (I guess this is so anyhow).
b) The other team will get training minutes upon some formula.
For example an easy formula will be:
Starters - 36 minutes.
Backups - 10 minutes.
Reservers - 2 minutes.

And this is exactly how it actually goes. There are however limitations such that you cannot guarantee 48 minutes in a single position by setting a player as starter, backup, and reserve.

Again, good to know.
But I didn't understand what happens when setting a single player as starter, backup, and reserve in a specific position.
Why this player won't get 48 minutes?
In case you mean that when there are more than 5 players signed to that player all of the starters go to the bench no matter what, than I know that, and wrote about it in another thread.

1) Who'll pay the salary ?

As can be concluded from the message I've wrote, the one who whould have the player for that game will be the one who will pay his salary.

I think that a new suggestion is needed to be set here.
Why does the salary is upon a date in a week?
Why not setting the payment upon the game played, or more precisely owned?
Each game a team owns a player will cost the portion of games at that week.
Meaning, due to the fact that in a week there are 3 games, each game wiill cost 1/3 of the player's salary.
I think it is a better definition, and works great with my suggestion.

If you bought a player, you want it available right so. If you want use a player for a game, sell it two hours later. In fact, even 30 minutes should be enough 99% of the time.

Well, when there are holes, they are needed to be handled. 1% or less.
And again, I think that my suggestion here answered all.
In case you find more holes, please write so.

Each game a team owns a player will cost the portion of games at that week.
Meaning, due to the fact that in a week there are 3 games, each game wiill cost 1/3 of the player's salary.

there is also a problem, so it is ceaper to not assign a scrimmage, or didn't they count? But then people in the cup would get 50% higher salarys, and at least i am rarely play player three times a week.
If you then say, just the games they play, then you will have collectors of players, maybe from special NT or prospect from them cause they only cost the buying.

And you have to process the salary three times a week.

Well, when there are holes, they are needed to be handled. 1% or less.

till now i never heard of the one percent to be happen. And when you look at the server lags, you probadly see why the transfers run at the lowest priority so they are freezed first and processed after the games this should be also the case when the server catch up the games(not 100% sure about it, but it makes sense in basic it infrastructures).

The other case is more common, that you buy a player 0,5-1 hour before the game for the game, and can not put him into the lineup cause he didn't come in time.

there is also a problem, so it is ceaper to not assign a scrimmage, or didn't they count? But then people in the cup would get 50% higher salarys, and at least i am rarely play player three times a week.
If you then say, just the games they play, then you will have collectors of players, maybe from special NT or prospect from them cause they only cost the buying.

And you have to process the salary three times a week.

I guess my english wasn't at its best.
Let's try with an example...

1) First let's speak idealy on a week with 3 games each, where all games are "important" (league and cup).
Now, a player played (on team-A) at the first game and had not been listed to the second (due to injury OR coach desicion).
Then he was transfered to team-B.
The result of it should be team-A pays 2/3 of its salary, team-B plays 1/3.
The computation could still be calculated once - at the same time it is caclulated today (and the payment time will not change either).

2) Now let's mix things up - now let's consider this week there is a scrimage instead one of those games, who should pay for that game?
Well, it can be defined in different ways, but I suggest that the team who will owns the consecutive game (which will be an "important" one) will pay this part.
A second option is not to count them unless all games are scrimages at that week (although I think that there is no salary payment in those weeks).

As you mentioned in your other paragraph, there are corner cases.
Due to that it will be good to handle them.
In any case, paying for a full week although you got him for 0 games that week (can happen), is something better be fixed.