BuzzerBeater Forums

Instead of having the following week's game shape depend largely on the number of minutes played in the previous week, and having the optimal range of that number be fixed for every player (I'm pretty sure that everyone has figured out that around 60-65 minutes is the optimal number of minutes), have you ever considered extending that concept a little and introducing new elements that could make the optimal range of minutes vary from player to player? This would obviously make the game shape implementation a bit more realistic and more interesting to manage. The one aspect I had in mind was stamina. Intuitively, it would make sense that a player with high stamina would be able to play more minutes during the week than a player with low stamina without having negative repercussions on the following week's game shape.
For example, a player with strong stamina might be able to play up to 90 minutes (meaning his range of minutes played without the possibility of negative repercussions on the following week's form would be from about 48 minutes to about 90 minutes in sted of 48-75) whereas a player with atrocious stamina would have trouble playing more than 50.

if we did that it would highly increase the value of stamina and we would need to announce it at least a season or two ahead of time, so we have no plans to do so and I won't comment on what i think of the idea.

I think that is a great idea, but I have two points. First is that a lot of teams have starters/ key players with very poor stamina. Your idea would make those players a real liability, which isn't a good thing. Second is that there shoud be a low limit as well for guys with high stamina. Say if they don't get at least 80 minutes their gameshape drops.

Overall I really like your idea. It would make stamina training a much more important factor, which would lower salaries in general, which is a good thing. I think it, or something similar, is very worthy of discussion.

if we did that it would highly increase the value of stamina and we would need to announce it at least a season or two ahead of time, so we have no plans to do so and I won't comment on what i think of the idea.

It certainly would, and I agree that it would need to be announced ahead of time to allow teams to adjust, but I also think that it would add a shade of realism to the game form system, and it would in part fix what is now (IMO) a problem with stamina: unlike other skills, too much stamina right now is a big problem for some players because it doesn't allow you to put them in the starting lineup for both league games, and that doesn't make too much sense, especially if those players are your best ones.
I'll offer a personal example: Belokopytov is my best player, and he has just dropped from valid stamina to strong stamina (so it's still really high). Well, if I put him in the starting lineup, he is almost assured of getting the full 48 minutes unless I put another player of similar skill level (which is hard to do since he is over 100k) on the bench, in which case he might get from 40 to 45 minutes. This means that if I put him in the starting lineup for both games he is virtually assured of getting over 90 minutes, and consequently dropping in form, which is definitely not what I would want.

I think that is a great idea, but I have two points. First is that a lot of teams have starters/ key players with very poor stamina. Your idea would make those players a real liability, which isn't a good thing.

Well, this is true in terms of handling their minutes, but nothing would chance from a performance point of view in the single match. Plus, IMO having a player with atrocious (or similar) stamina should be a real liability, because it would increase the value of that skill.

Second is that there shoud be a low limit as well for guys with high stamina. Say if they don't get at least 80 minutes their gameshape drops.

This would depend on how the system is implemented: you could argue that the lower limit would not have to be different from what it is now, because a player with high stamina could endure more minutes of playing time, but wouldn't necessarily need to play more minutes in order to have good form.

Overall I really like your idea. It would make stamina training a much more important factor, which would lower salaries in general, which is a good thing. I think it, or something similar, is very worthy of discussion.

Thanks.

Yeah, i always get my guys around the 50-75 mark but i thought 48-90 was the general range.

Aaaanyway, stamina has nothing to do with it apparently which was my original question :P

There was a study of this, showing that the the highest game shape increase occurs at ~60, though 50-70 is certainly about enough to keep GS from decreasing wit hsufficient probability. 48-90 seems a bit wide.

Someone more meticulous than me might have a link to a neat little graph of how GS ups were distributed.

My second point was that there should be (gameplay-wise not logical realism-wise) a tradeoff so that there is at least a bit of a negative to go along with the positives of superior stamina. Almost all aspects of this game have a cost and benefit so I was thinking that this should as well.

ps- valid?? stamina

My second point was that there should be (gameplay-wise not logical realism-wise) a tradeoff so that there is at least a bit of a negative to go along with the positives of superior stamina. Almost all aspects of this game have a cost and benefit so I was thinking that this should as well.

ps- valid?? stamina

Lol..sorry..in italian lvl.9 is "valid"..I can't remember exactly what it is in the english version, and I was too lazy to change my profile and look it up. ;)

As for the negative tradeoff, I don't know, I guess that should be a judgement call by the BB's..if they want to have stamina be similar to other skills in that the higher the better, then there doesn't necessarily have to be one, if noy, then yeah, you could have it be that you have to play a guy with high stamina a bit more for him to stay in form (which would still be fine with me, since it's better to be forced to play a guy with high stamina more than it is to play him less, and it still adds depth to the game shape aspect of the game).

but I also think that it would add a shade of realism to the game form system, and it would in part fix what is now (IMO) a problem with stamina: unlike other skills, too much stamina right now is a big problem for some players because it doesn't allow you to put them in the starting lineup for both league games, and that doesn't make too much sense, especially if those players are your best ones.

Agreed in principle, and I'd like to see stamina play a role in game shape.

On the other hand, high stamina level shouldn't be a free ticket to play your superstar(s) night in night out with them performing at the highest level. So, finding the right balance may be tricky.

but I also think that it would add a shade of realism to the game form system, and it would in part fix what is now (IMO) a problem with stamina: unlike other skills, too much stamina right now is a big problem for some players because it doesn't allow you to put them in the starting lineup for both league games, and that doesn't make too much sense, especially if those players are your best ones.

Agreed in principle, and I'd like to see stamina play a role in game shape.

On the other hand, high stamina level shouldn't be a free ticket to play your superstar(s) night in night out with them performing at the highest level. So, finding the right balance may be tricky.

That's why ideally the limit could be no more than 96 minutes (meaning two games out of three) for a player with maximum stamina possible. For a guy with very high stamina, that doesn't sound unreasonable.