BuzzerBeater Forums

Change that. Don't change that.
Be quick to change. Wait five seasons before changing things.

Yes, changing a game midstream after seasons of leaving it alone despite obvious imbalances is a PR challenge. This should be expected.

Everyone can't be happy. This time, they decide to change things and you are in the unhappy group. There is a good lot of happy people, so that wasn't a bad choice by the BB to act.

Thanks for clarifying it was the right choice. I was unsure thinking it was still up for debate. Happy people lot FTW.

So, I know details have to be worked but I prefer to pop this issue sooner than later:

Will *tactics expectatives* be public (like chosen tactics are) or private (like enthusiasm level does)? Will it be explicity shown in Game Ratings, as tactics are, or it's going to be implicit, like the bonus of enthusiasm is (e.g. I can see the impact of it, even though I don't really know my opponent's level)?

Have you thought of it or it's still part of the "details"? Because unless the bonus ends up being unnoticeable -performance wise-, this could eventually lead to a very confusing read of ratings if I don't know what my opponent did or didn't.

I guess this can be of the cons of not actually tweaking the tactics but creating an artificial device to do it instead.

Last edited by Zero, the Magi. at 9/22/2013 10:23:32 AM

Do the changes on SB/JR apply to the training cap as well or only to salaries?

Ok fair enough, Wolph ... I agree there is a phantom boost in RL. But this boost is heavily coupled with tactical changes. I do understand this a simulator and coding some of these realism is a complex task. But as how it is announced now, there seems to be no correlation between tactical & boost. You run RNG and I can just go 2-3 or any other tactic that has no counter to RNG ... and still got this boost because I simply guess it right. To me that is taking the realism in the wrong direction. Assuming that our current tactics work as intended, the boost in itself is in making these tactical decisions. Maybe yet, a better approach is implementing a tactical switch in the last 4 minutes. Switch to the "right" tactic and your team gets a boost. Both sides can switch so it is a fair game your opponent may switch to something else as well. No action means the boost formula applies to what tactic chosen at start of game.

Only to salaries, changes didn't change your player's JR, it just became cheaper.

Actually I believe an earlier reply to this thread stated that the wage tweak to JR and SB does indeed affect their effects on potential...

Last edited by Jay (OTT) at 9/22/2013 12:31:17 PM

Sure if you correctly predict your opponent is going to play RnG you'll get the boost, but if you then also play 2-3, you are going to be having a disadvantage due to your poor choice of defense. Since we really don't know the impact of the boost, perhaps this ends up being a wash and your 2-3 now works against RnG as if you had chosen 3-2. Or perhaps it's more akin to just a very well played 2-3 stretching to cover RnG.

In reality it isn't actually true to say that there is one form of Motion/Look Inside/Run & Gun/2-3/3-2/Man to Man/etc. And teams even play multiple versions of the same offense/defense based on not only their opponent but who they have on the floor at any one time. I don't expect we will ever be able to duplicate that in BB. I'm going to choose to look at the new predict tactic feature as essentially that - a team modifying the base of an offense/defense to contend with the specifics they expect from their opponent.

People are also acting like the proposed prediction feature is somehow going to guarantee teams a victory. I certainly don't get that from the news post. It sounds to me like a strong LI (or any other offense) is still going to be able to play that offense against a team they would beat easily and win - even if their opponent correctly predicts they are going to be playing LI. It will likely just be a closer game than it otherwise might have been.

And since there are no teams that actually are built for just one offense (find me a LI team that can't also play at least LP and most likely BO fairly well) it's fairly easy to increase the risk a team is taking by trying to predict your tactics, and getting a bonus yourself from their wrong prediction. If you have a 50/50 chance of either getting a boost or suffering a penalty against an opponent you typically expect a close game against, do you take the risk or not? What if the odds of getting the boost are only 33% but the odds for the penalty are 67%?

Indeed, BB_Patrick answered earlier the question

Let me get back to you on this, but I'm 99% sure it also affects potential caps.

Yeah, looks like I misunderstood something:)

Indeed, BB_Patrick answered earlier the question

Let me get back to you on this, but I'm 99% sure it also affects potential caps.

What that means is that if you have a player who has capped, and that player has at least some JR or some SB, then that player should revert back to "almost capped" again, where you can still train him.

Unless you continued training that player a lot even after he capped out.