BuzzerBeater Forums

just yesterday in my PO game i played a team that had all of her starting players on 6 GS

you know that i could look at your examples? Your opponent had an average GS of 8,2 in his starting lineup. It is hard to even found the player with GS 6 in it, and then the question is how was his GS before? In my experience it would be more around 7, and i had several GS 7 before i put in Gameshape training in last week(which allows me also to overplay).

just yesterday in my PO game i played a team that had all of her starting players on 6 GS - it happend because for 1 game their manager couldn't get to a computer in order to set a lineup- most of the starting player were on GS 8-9 the week before.

and surprise, they have it even now ;)

Edit: and not to forget, if the scale is more static the impact of bad shape will be lower the next week but much more painfull the next game. Since the cup is at the beginning of the season, and it already need 1/3 of season to get to normal shape with the current speed that would be especially in the beginning more painful then now.

Last edited by CrazyEye at 5/2/2012 3:55:02 AM

I don't really understand your reply (i have a feeling you looked at my lineup)...
BTW the player with GS 6 on my team came back from injury and had 5 the week before...

this is the team i played against:

http://www.buzzerbeater.com/team/92617/players.aspx

4 players from the starting five are on GS 6 and one is on GS 7 - and they all were at GS 8-9 the week before... you don't have to belive me- but it's still true.

The issue with the cup games - is exactly what this comes to resolve- if you get a hard draw - the effect of playing a good lineup would be less severe.


Last edited by TrinZ at 5/2/2012 4:06:34 AM

ojk i looked at your team, and i would say you was the clear favorite also on normal shape since i expected an upset so i checked it without even looking that much on the result. his star C also had weird minutes before, and he had an tendency to overplay.

But drop from 9 to 6, i never experienced during my buzzerbeater career, even with injurys. To 7 is possible, but that can happen with good minutes too, but the likelihood increase with bad minutes but then it is mostly around ~7,8.

IAnd i never managed to kill my enthusiam to 6, after the second week without an injury, and yes i messed up my lineup sometimes too. So i doubt, that it is likely or really much more then a level lost.

And as said, if it get more static, one bad lineup hurts you a lot longer. So the negative effect is roughly the same.




Last edited by CrazyEye at 5/2/2012 4:17:31 AM

The all point is it hurts you for longer... but not as hard per specific week...

so , if you take my example- the team i played (regardless of whether i would win or not) would have a better chance of winning against me and a harder time raising the enthusiasm to an optimal level.

basicly spreading the effect of GS loss and gain - thus causing teams not to throw away games or the entire cup run...

hence- increasing competitiveness.

Last edited by TrinZ at 5/2/2012 4:27:09 AM

then iwe could talk about team who messed upp a lineup two week before ;)

And maybe yor example as point for the end of the season, since the effect is really smaller there, but when you think how long is take at the begin of the season(where most of the 3 games week are) your suggestion punish 3 games week more when most teams would use it.

we could talk about adjusting the messed up lineup between two weeks to three - but the idea is to find the golden balance-at the moment imho and also after a debate with many users - the conclusion we got to is that there is too much weight for one week minute distribution causing teams to throw games - spreading it to 2-3 weeks would lower the amount of games thrown in order to keep GS.

the thing with the 3 game weeks is that some of the weeks you get bots and some you get a hard opponent - so in the weeks of the bot (or very weak opponent) you can make up (at least partially) for the weeks that you wanted to still be competitive... the reality at the moment is that teams choose to either throw the cup game or one of the league games - so the punishment per week of a 3 game week is more severe - after the change - the punishment will be more long lasting but less severe per week.

Last edited by CrazyEye at 5/2/2012 4:58:12 AM

the punishment will be more long lasting but less severe per week.

and that won't lead to thrown games?

imho your solution, would bring me to forfeit games more often.

I thing if you want to change it, reduce the effect of overplaying and that would be something i would like to see.

Last edited by CrazyEye at 5/2/2012 5:00:30 AM

imho, it will not- the reason is you have more of an option to win- people throw away games because they do a simple math- if i do not lose 1 game this week - i will lose 2-3 next week (due to bad GS).

Now, if the consideration would be that - if i do not lose 1 game this week - i still have an option of winning next week (reduced , but still an option) - and maybe i will get a good draw in the cup that will allow me to compensate the loss of GS for a specific week - it might not solve the issue completly - but it will definietly reduce the amounts of thrown games (and also the fun of the game -as there will be more teams gambling on GS change).

The problem i see with reducing the effect of overplaying- is that it falls in the category of making the game to easy as Metta World Knecht wrote in his first response - this is why streching the effect to several weeks along with adjusting the overplaying effect of a specific week is the best solution.

Now, if the consideration would be that - if i do not lose 1 game this week - i still have an option of winning next week (reduced , but still an option)

you still have the option today, but the games, who get out of reach or in danger would change with the system.

we disagree on that- the games would not change -it will spread on more games- thus making the consideration of taking a chance on winning more likeable...

instead of having an X amount of chances for losing all of next week like it is today

you wil have an X-1 amount of chances for losing next week and an X-0.5 chance for the second week plus an option of going back to even better chances if you get an easy draw.

it seems to me- we are repeating the same things now- i think people can read and try to put their understanding and input on this...

I think Trinz’s idea is a good one, and here is my reasoning:

In the higher levels of this game there are 3 acceptable levels of game shape – 9 which we always try our best to get to, 8 – which is most common, good but usually not good enough for the more difficult games, and 7 – which means – “oh my god, my team’s game shape really sucks”. Game shape of 5-6 is so bad that most of the serious users in the game will do anything to avoid them, even losing a game. On the other hand you can very easily get to game shape 7 – one week of over play (not 48*3, but 30-35 *3 is more than enough), or even just a couple of weeks of bad luck with the random factor.
The suggestion to open the game shape to a 1-20 scale bar, can (if deployed wisely) diminish this issue – because now the affects will be more moderate – if in the current system you can have a decline of one or two levels (which equals 2 or 4 levels of decline in the proposed system), now you can have decline of 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 levels at once, obviously the probability of 4 will be less than 2 in the old system, thus making room for more subtle changes – today most users will give a game just not to screw with the game shape –leading to a lot of uncompetitive games in the last third of the season – some can affect critical issues such as the identity if the relegated team and so on. In the new system this dilemma – game shape or 3 games in a week will be less obvious, leading to a more competitive league.

Bottom line: game shape is important thing to keep in high levels, but today it has to much weight on tactical decisions. this offer may change that.