BuzzerBeater Forums

Pini, have you ever coded anything?

Well, you can bet I've coded (much) more than a little...

The developers will first need to decide whether this feature is needed.
It is sertaintly do, as users are leaving the game because they could not match and due to unfairness in the game that gives great advantage to those who just have more flexible time.
It is a ridicolus unfairness for any game.

The second taks will be to estimate the time this featue will take.
It should not take them to long, as most of their infrastructure is already coded and it is only needed to be adjusted at most, and in addition there are no hard computation tasks here.

The third part will be to prioritize upon need and time.
I believe this is one of the most needed features due to the fact that users are leving the game due to that unfairness (which by its own makes it a high priority task).

Regarding the cost of bugs etc.
One who will not code will never have bugs.
As improving the game is due to making some code changes, bugs will happen. Hopefully not much...
In this case and due to the nature of the feature, it should be rather simple and bug free.

A solution - new users cannot use auto-bids!
They need to be a full season in the game before they can use it.

Since your main argument is that some users are at a disadvantage in an unfair market, and that is all solved by introducing auto-bidding, why would you then intentionally put the new users at a disadvantage? You have been telling they are leaving the game in droves due to not getting to auto-bid. Now you just can't get them out the door fast enough.

Your message here pretty much point that it was just an excuse, but let's kill the new beast you've put at the door...

Those who are leaving the game are those who got to a level where this disadvantage realy plays a big role.
A newbee first learns the game (by playing it) and only then is facing this disadvantage and unfairness.
This is why you claimed it should be simple for them, as at the begining they are just learning the game.

Anyhow, you are trying to catch both sides of the stick.
Or they are in a stage that it bothers them, or that it does not!

I believe that it should be open for all, and from the start.

It is kind of weired (unless I understood that your claim is just an excuse), that you are finding that this new option of different auction system will be just too much for the poor newbees, but you don't think that anything else should be removed from the options in the game to make their life (that you are so care about) easier.

This is the first time I see someone behave like he's won a poll when he's clearly lost it.

You are a very creative guy Pini :)

I've never said the I won the vote. I said it was splitted.
Splitted does not mean that it was 50-50, but that there was no absolute answer to that vore.
A voting with 36-21 is definately not a clear answer where all support one option or close to that.

It is "amazing" that this is what you find important to write in order to find this suggestion bad.
I guess you have no more excuses...

It's just that I like to smile and laugh now and then. You should try it too, it's good.

Anyways, 36-21 means that 63% of the voters find it a bad idea.
How is that not a clear answer?
63% would be considered a "bulgarian majority" in all types of votes, except the Pini ones I guess?


Last edited by Stavrogin at 10/26/2011 6:34:16 PM

It is not even true as a statement.
There are majorities at the congress of two thirds (and even more) that are needed in order a law could pass.

It do makes me laugh how you just keep chasing the voting issue and not bringing a single new excuse as they just have been answered all.

When 37% of the users think that something is needed to be considered, it means that there is a problem for a large group of users, and not that it was proved wrong and I was the only one who vote in favour (like you tried to argue for your own benefit of this mall system).

In the end, the developers will see that there is a problem for 37% of the users.
They will see that it means that users leaving the game due to it.
They will see that the new system just has no flows, except for those who benefits from current system unfairness.
They will understand that there was no claim that pointed to a problem that had not been answered.
Due to all that they will choose to have this feature, as it will improve the game and the community size of who plays the game.

Exactly.
New rules pass with 67% of the votes.
You want your new rule to be legit when you have 37% of the votes.
Enough said.


And no, you didn't answer claims at all. They are all there in the previous 100+ posts. If people don't keep replying is just because they're bored of repeating the same things again and again.

But I'll try once more and repeat my main problem with auto-bid:

Auto-bid removes the suspence/fun in the transfer market. The suspence/fun of the transfer market is the major lure of the game for new users. There is a high risk to lose new users if you implement auto-bid. If you give auto-bid only to oldtimers, you introduce unfairness.

Goodnight now

The suggestion has pretty much been flogged to death. Let's try to introduce some new points of view (pro or con) in a friendly manner or close the discussion which has been a bit disrespectful for about 100 posts.

Exactly.
New rules pass with 67% of the votes.
You want your new rule to be legit when you have 37% of the votes.
Enough said.

Basically you are now defining how the developers should choose their new features.
This is not the way they are choosing it.
It is, again, pointing out that you are looking for excuses and not for a solution or to reason out why it is a bad suggestion.

And no, you didn't answer claims at all. They are all there in the previous 100+ posts. If people don't keep replying is just because they're bored of repeating the same things again and again.

"Great" claim. We all "know" that when one would not answer an argument the other will just bring new ones instead.

Basically you're argumentative plan now is just inventing new reality that does not exists.

I don't know how this claim here will assist you.
Do you think that the developers will just read this quote of you and will say "OK, let's not read any other post here"?

Auto-bid removes the suspence/fun in the transfer market. The suspence/fun of the transfer market is the major lure of the game for new users. There is a high risk to lose new users if you implement auto-bid. If you give auto-bid only to oldtimers, you introduce unfairness.

Let's break this one into pieces...

1)

If you give auto-bid only to oldtimers, you introduce unfairness.

So, you are admitting that currently there is unfairness in the auction system as the auto-bidding system does not give any advantage besides the option to be part of any auction. It just "simulate" what that user would have done in case he was online at the time of the auction that he couldn't be part of.
As I remember you claiming just the opposite, it is very... interesting.

2)

There is a high risk to lose new users if you implement auto-bid

As you just admitted in (1) that current status is not fair, you can narrow the it in two ways.
a) Open this new feature to all.
b) Close this feature to newbies (until they play a full season or so)
The newbies will suffer some unfairness but only in the first season (compared to current status which is - always).

In addition, unfairness in a game (any game) pushes users away from the game much more than anything else.

3)

The suspence/fun of the transfer market is the major lure of the game for new users

a) It is not removed. They can be online bidders after the auto-bidding part ends.
b) It is not what makes the game that fun. It is like saying that the mirror in the car is what makes the driving on it fun, and that the quality of the mirror is the one of the most interesting parts when buying a car.
If you are right, I would suggest making an auction-simulation game. Somehow it sounds ridiculous.
c) As I wrote, they could be blocked at the first season to be able only to bid online.
The unfairness of it already discussed at (2).
You limit the unfairness from "always" to "only at the first season/s".

Waiting for new excuses.

Last edited by Pini פיני at 10/27/2011 2:36:43 AM

As you just admitted in (1) that current status is not fair, you can narrow the it in two ways.
a) Open this new feature to all.
b) Close this feature to newbies (until they play a full season or so)
The newbies will suffer some unfairness but only in the first season (compared to current status which is - always).

In addition, unfairness in a game (any game) pushes users away from the game much more than anything else.

you really meant this serious, with this change you get unfairness. Today you have fairness, so you like to scare of user with your suggestion.

As you just admitted in (1) that current status is not fair, you can narrow the it in two ways.
a) Open this new feature to all.
b) Close this feature to newbies (until they play a full season or so)
The newbies will suffer some unfairness but only in the first season (compared to current status which is - always).

In addition, unfairness in a game (any game) pushes users away from the game much more than anything else.

you really meant this serious, with this change you get unfairness. Today you have fairness, so you like to scare of user with your suggestion.

The logic that brang you to this conclusion is very... interesting.

Currently there is no fairness - it gives advantage to those who have more flexible time.
This game is about BB managing and not about making your time flexible.
The suggestion will make it fair, at least under that aspect.

In case you are claiming that it gives advantage - because it enable all users to be part of any auction unlike current status - then you approve that current status is unfair.
In case you don't, so how will it cause unfairness?

If you are saying that the new system will be too much for the new users (which is ridiculous), then you can disable it for them, and still the game will be more fair for them then it currently is, as this unfairness will be for a short while - unlike current status.

Basically you are trying to give excuse that contradicts anything you claimed previously, and even contradicts itself in the same sentence...