BuzzerBeater Forums

I would like to say thanks on all the improvements done here;

GS en FB enthusiasm drop is a step forward.

It would be also more effective if it affects the overal Team Enthusiasm as well; this is a realistic event as since players do not act and perform well when they notice the club is treating them as merchandise.

A far more difficult one to implement is a pleayer to be able to REFUSE to join the day trader club because of its bad reputation. But seriously I don't know how that could be implemented.

not a bad idea,

but i fear that would be too hard to do for the game code, i think ... . . . becuase you might get a player with a really good or sensational guy but doesnt have the flare to compete in your team.

One thing that might be interesting though is to remove this "sell and you will lose fans for the next few games" things during the off season (after the last regular season game or the last championship final game - and the 1st game of the new season)

During that time teams should be trying to ameliorate their roster (by buying and selling) in order to be competitive for the new season... the loss of GS should remain for players bought but the selling should not affect fans (if you sell 5 players then you will probably start the season with a half empty stadium which is not realistic because fans usual await a new season with enthusiasm and generally show up massively then start disappearing from the stadium if their team does not perform well)

Sure that would create a period where the market will be flooded and prices would go down quite a lot but... that also happens in real life!

since we have this fan enthusiasm that affects attendance ( i hope if you sell your stars then it affect you much more than selling player you cant use )

how about when a team bought a really bloody good player!

since we have the potential which i know isnt a fair indication since some of their the skills really suck! not to mention out of position. if his a mvp your fans are delighted with the reputation he has . . . .

it should also compensate in a way the lost! because its kinda fair to the team that really plays, one who just doesnt do the trading players as a way to just make money but to bolster their lineup and be competitive.

One thing that might be interesting though is to remove this "sell and you will lose fans for the next few games" things during the off season (after the last regular season game or the last championship final game - and the 1st game of the new season)

I like this idea a lot. I will go as much as to suggest to remove this feature as soon as the Ineligible for this season's playoffs flag goes up. This way you are letting teams restock during a reasonable interval of time at no penalty, but they can't use the new players immediately. I think it's a good trade-off (by the way, the game shape effect will be irrelevant there, since those folks will reset before they can be used).

However...

# Game Shape changes: Players that have just been sold will have their Game Shape reduced by two levels following the sale, since they need a little bit of time to adjust to a new system. Players who are listed for sale but do not find a buyer will also lose game shape, as they get depressed that nobody wants them. This limits the effectiveness of teams with a high level of turnaround.

I am not sure how I feel about this feature. It has absolutely no effect on teams that sell for profit -- sure, folks with poor game shape cost less, but if you're daytrading the player, you don't care about this much. On the other hand, since it is so easy to raise game shape and keep it up, maybe it is not too bad of an idea. I am afraid though that this might make people list players at 1k to make sure they don't have to relist them with lower game shape, thus somewhat helping teams that are willing to forsake their fanbase and trade.

the bbb is just a farce, we'll get trumped by teams that can take it easy 4 times a week.

Ditto on game shape changes.

Also, these teams will be able to get 33% more training. I don't see how additional minutes to manage can hurt them much either, since it's enough to have 10 good players to play 4 games effectively.

Thanks for the detailed reply (the end got cut off by the way).

It is good to know that most of these issues have been considered. I think it is normal for people to immediately start pointing out problems. And I think this is good (or at least not bad), since this can potentially provide a perspective that has escaped the dev team. Even though some of us are probably a bit over the top with the reaction, I am sure none was meant in a bad way as we all appreciate the time and effort you're spending on making the game better.

It is also good that some points got cleared up. I wish to point back to game shape issues. For one, there are some teams with dedicated stamina or free throws (or both) training regimes that might end up putting folks with bad game shape on the market. Two, the problem that was brought up in this thread will stem, I think, from relisting the same player over and over. In effect, it is a dilemma between risking getting a lower transfer fee in a market that still has imperfections (and possibly feeding a daytrader in the process), and driving the game shape down and getting less money because of that anyway.

I realize that this is designed to hurt traders that hold players 'on stock', and keep re-listing them until someone makes a bid, I just think that it often takes at least 2 listings for just about any team to sell a player. Hopefully, the game shape effect when not being able to find a buyer will be less severe (this is not made explicitly clear in the news statement), because 2 levels is just painful.

Cheers

One other note: I've seen a few people mention that they'd like more advance notice of new features that are coming. The main problem involved is that there are often technical reasons why the ideas that we are working on turn out not to work, and we definitely do not want to announce, for example, that we're working on a new staff system if it turns out that our idea ends up failing (about half of the ideas that we like and start trying to implement fail for one reason or another before they are complete). So it would mean that we would be completing new features and then holding them back for a few weeks, which is something we will do with a major game engine change but have tried not to with other stuff. But is this a good idea an

only one thing.

I think that it not correct announce something on wich you are working but that is not ready and in this i think like you (if i did translate correct)

but i think that one month before asg or end season you must announce the changes that you are going to make on asg or end season. Changes taht are sure and tested. If there is somethink on working in that periods its became one of changes of the next time..

In this way the problem is finish and we are really happy about this

i hope that you can understand me despite my bad english