BuzzerBeater Forums

i know what you mean, the average 3point percentage is lower then the reality ;) But the system works and is pretty fair, for teams with stronger inside or outside player(i would say outside managers has a little advantage now because of salary etc.).

But i won't risk the balance to make the game, more real.

That was to be expected, 4 inside trainers rushing to post that everything is just all right, let's not change anything Kinda funny.

I have more weeks of jump range training than any other training, by a big margin, and still my percentages are going down, even facing inside managers with guards with low salaries.

There is quite a big number of teams not playing with 30k$ + players at every spot you know, and the game might not be happening the same way for us than for national teams and top teams in national leagues.

There is quite a big number of teams not playing with 30k$ + players at every spot you know, and the game might not be happening the same way for us than for national teams and top teams in national leagues.

You know also, that national teams have balanced rooster who could play both inside and outside + i expect that the managers mostly got elected because they know the game.

When inside tactics was soo powerfull, why do Nationalteams play so much outside focus games are the managers dumb?

I also play this game with weaker playrs, but it looks pretty similiar because my opponent have weaker players to at this stage of development from my team so the matchups was pretty similiar.

I have more weeks of jump range training than any other training, by a big margin, and still my percentages are going down, even facing inside managers with guards with low salaries.

So what happens when you increase outside shooting +5% like Forest plans? That means the percentage raise from average 33 to 38 percent, i expect most teams playing outside strategies ;) Actually you could have succes with both strategies, which is pretty fine in my eyes but they are crazy because i even don't see that i am an inside trainer^^

mate... before you jump the gun, (assuming i am one off the guys saying everything is all right, since I did say that) I train guards and play OD and Outside offensive attacks... the game engine will never be 100% alright in a game like this. that is impossible, but the game engine is very close to the 100% and I think the results I see always make sense when you look at the real statistics and not at the team ratings/player ratings. I think most people agree with me they don´t make a lot off sense.

Your statement about most players not playing with 30k$ + salaries I feel is spot on. Outside the top teams, teams are not balanced and you will not get balanced results.... I agree with that...

With regards to the percentages going down, this is what I ment before and already was confirmed. Inside players only need 3 skills. IS, ID and RB. Outside players only need JS, JR, OD and PS. Most people I talked to say OD is the slowest to train skill. So the fact you have to train 1 more skill and 1 skill is the slowest one to train, maybe that is why on the long run you might loose out compared to people training inside skills. I believe (and only time will tell this) that this will even out, because guards fetch a lot more cash than an IS player. You make more money when you sell a few trainees and you can buy inside guys...

When inside tactics was soo powerfull, why do Nationalteams play so much outside focus games are the managers dumb?

Yes.

Sorry, just kidding. Couldn't help myself

i dont know of a way to gradually go between what we have now and what we want to have...

what we have now is that getting a rebound is picked from a distribution proportional to the ratings.... sounds reasonable right?

but there is a big difference between picking between a level 1 and 3 and a level 11 and 13. In the first case, the level 3 gets a 3x time advantage in rebounding.. in the second its almost a toss up and so who gets more rebounds is actaully just a function of a) who had more defensive rebound opportunities and b) luck, which is how you are getting the "buggy" rebounding results you are getting now.

on the other hand, what i would propose to do is look at the mean rebounding on the court.. subtract that off and then have the weighting be a sigmodial function of the difference from the mean... so there is some maximum advantage you can have over rebounding... a sizeable but finite advantage... (so one team can never get all the boards).

EDIT: SOME OF THESE STATEMENTS MIGHT BE MISLEADING.. PLEASE READ (66639.86)

Last edited by BB-Forrest at 1/7/2009 9:49:46 PM

i dont know of a way to gradually go between what we have now and what we want to have...

use weight and both algorithms, one who use absolute differences and one who use relativ difference.

For example:
absolute difference Team A gets Rebound 55%
relative difference Team A get rebound 51%

weighted relatives difference/absolute -> 3/1
result -> 52%

so you get an slithly change to the way you like it, with a pretty basic way of implementation.

This depends on how the GE calculates the percentage probabilities. It is easy to find the midpoint ex post, but I am not so sure this can happen in the process of game simulation.

you don't have to change one algorithm, you only have to extract the rand function out of it ;)

and start it after running the new algorithm, and rebalance the "fields" with the weigths. And i don't know a way to implement that another way, you had to store one help variabel, which shouldn't be a problem but it needs more time to process which could be a problem.

fair enough.. i could do something like that... though i will say it is more complicated than you laid out.. given how its really a 10 way choice, and we would have to normalize both distributions which we didnt have to do before, so its gonna be computationally more intense....id have to think harder/experiment to find out if its prohibitively so...
EDIT: SOME OF THESE STATEMENTS MIGHT BE MISLEADING.. PLEASE READ (66639.86)

Last edited by BB-Forrest at 1/7/2009 9:50:33 PM