BuzzerBeater Forums

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.

I don't think it will take a longer time to get back to a good shape after 1 bad week in the new system.

The ratio between improving game- shape to destroying it will stay the same, only the jumps won't be from 9 to 7/6 but to 8/high 7 (and vice versa with drops).

So if you will constatly give your players bad minutes you'll find it very hard to get them back on track and it will take you much more time/game-shape trainings to do so. But if you constatly taking good care for your players minutes and one week you need them to play more it won't hurt you as much as now (even due it will still hurt) and in a week or 2 you'll already be able to wear off this effect.

Last edited by Yotamnor at 5/2/2012 11:39:51 AM

You guys are lobbieing for 3 games a week with starters? Seriously?
It's all about choises. Get enough players to help you cruise through the early cup rounds. If you have 3 tough games in a week, you have to choose either cup or league success. If you want all the games, be ready to train game shape and cross your fingers. You can't have one's cake and eat it too.

I have to agree, I'm not quite sure where the tradeoff comes. As I read it, it seems like the idea is to allow for a certain number of weeks where players could play all three games, without resulting in a huge hit to gameshape after the update.

My gut feeling is with Kukoc, add more players, or train GS, or make a tradeoff between league and cup games. But if there's something more to the suggestion, perhaps running a hypothetical set of players through a few weeks under the current and proposed systems, would be helpful in illuminating exactly what the suggestion is.

I see the criticism for the offer isn't so positive, so let's take a step back and see if we agree on the problem presented.

This is as I see it in one sentence - in current system game shape has a big weight on tactical decisions, too big.

This game is great - it is challenging, its hard to master, and takes time until you start to understand how it works. that is a good thing, but sometimes the difficulties of the game has a less nice side-affects - lose of competitiveness.

Game shape does that. in the current system it is really easy to bring a player to level 7, but on the other hand level 7 is terrible when playing teams in the same strength as yours. the side affect is that usually after all-star break teams that are still in the cup, must forfeit games in order to stay there, it is "cup or league" with no room for anything in the middle - why should it be? where is the equivalence in realty?

Of-course when you try to win it all, you must pay a price, you cannot let all your stars play all of the time, but the system should allow more flexibility, maybe giving each week a rest to some of the starters, not force you to give all a rest.

a lot of you answered - tough on you - you want the cup, pay the price in the league - for a second I'll say: OK - your choice your problem. but what about the other teams in your league - these forfeits we see a lot (usually in the higher divisions) affects all the teams in the league, imagine two team fighting for position 7, each has a game left against a mid-level team that tries to go far in the cup - eventually one plays against the team, when it is still in the cup and gets a free win, while the other plays against it, a week later after the team lost in the cup and loses - this can affect which team gets relegated - that is a problem - that is not competitive sport.

So i think a new system which is a bit more subtle may solve this problem, and that one week of grinding the players wont have such devastating affect (one week only - not constant grinding)

what do say? Do you agree with the problem i presented? If so, suggestions please!

Hi Kukoc and Tangosz

I am actually against 3 games a week with starters- that would hurt competitiveness more than help it - try to read shadamher last response- he presents the problem well, as well as the entire discussion where we addressed these points.

The change we are offering would not allow a team to play her starters 3 games a week without punishment- but that the punishment will be less severe but at the same time it might hurt that team for longer (2-3 weeks instead of one).

The tradeoff is actually reducing the level that a team gets hurt per week and dividing it to a few weeks- so that you still get hurt from playing your starters in 3 games and even more if you do it constantly- but on the other hand- if you have one specific week that you want to be competitive in all 3 games- you can - and you will pay for it moderately for the next 2-3 weeks.


I will try to run the experiment you wanted Tangosz , I hope i understood what you are asking for:

Scale of GS is 1-20
changes in scale are between -3 to 3

starting season GS 7 (also debatable)
Starting player on team X:

week 1 : 75 min GS 9
week 2 : 65 min GS 12
week 3 : 75 min GS 14
week 4 : 70 min GS 17
week 5 : 115 min GS 14
week 6 : 115 min GS 11
week 7 : 70 min GS 14
week 8 : 70 min GS 17
week 9 : 70 min GS 20

Starting player on team Y:

week 1 : 75 min GS 9
week 2 : 65 min GS 12
week 3 : 75 min GS 14
week 4 : 70 min GS 17
week 5 : 75 min GS 19
week 6 : 75 min GS 20
week 7 : 90 min GS 18
week 8 : 85 min GS 17
week 9 : 70 min GS 20

as you can see in this hypothetical example- there is a punishment to extending minutes PER WEEK - it is less massive in it's effect since the scale is longer and it takes longer to improve it as well...

Last edited by TrinZ at 5/3/2012 12:24:29 PM

you can even make the decline due to over-play progressive:
if a player is over - played one week the effect is relatively small, but if he is over played a second week in a row and third and so on, every week the decline is bigger, making a one week over-play something you can handle, but not for more than that - this way teams can grind one or two players a certain week, and then let them rest the following weeks, and grind a different player - it's called rotation.

Last edited by Shadamher at 5/3/2012 9:52:09 AM