BuzzerBeater Forums

The thing is though that many users complain over different things in the game and if nothing is done there is more complaints. But as a change comes to address something a storm of complaints come because of changes being made.
I'm not sure how they should do to keep everyone happy. Do you even think it's possible?

I have understood that key success factor related to change management is good communication, maybe that could be tried next time - now game is lost already for this season changes ;)

The thing is though that many users complain over different things in the game and if nothing is done there is more complaints. But as a change comes to address something a storm of complaints come because of changes being made.
I'm not sure how they should do to keep everyone happy. Do you even think it's possible?

Because the game is clearly headed in the wrong direction - has been for like 6 years or so. There have been so many wasted opportunities to fix certain issues and every fricken time the communication failed miserably.

Now the game is becoming rocket science and the old "no spoonfeeding" mantra is obviously the main problem here. Releasing a season news post after the first season game is stupid, because many users plan in advance. Having to explain this to you and your posse is tiring and even more frustrating.

So since you know a thing or 2 about tanking, maybe you can answer about the fact that the rules affect nobody playing with a bot, but can affect people with injuries and training (see my team in Utopia last season for reference, started 0-8 due to injury then went like 8-2 or so, without adding anyone)? I don't expect Perpete to answer since he didn't support this change, but, by god, some individual with (presumably) average intelligence did vote for this so he should be able to explain why all our concerns were not taken into consideration and why this change is better than no change or other changes.

What had been suggested (multiple times) in the past in forums was a system based on 2 criteria:
1) losing streaks (against human teams)
2) PD (against human teams)
If you have bots you have an advantage as it takes longer to get a long enough losing streak, but at some point you will be penalised as you should. With the current change you won't get penalised.



Last edited by GM-Perpete at 12/28/2016 7:13:55 PM

I have to admit that I've lied to you, it was in this post (282669.113)

Whatever, not sure what you're talking about

Time to make it true from now on.

I wish you will read and consider all posts, especially since the userbase shrank a lot, it should be a lot easier. Then maybe you will be able to engage in a discussion and answer the concerns that people voice in forums, instead of moaning, whining and accusing.

Or perhaps, for a change, you might want to add something useful to the discussion by answering some very simple questions that you have been dodging since these changes were announced:
1) Did you consider that the measures against tanking would have no effect in any league with bots? If so why do you think your proposal was fair considering that at the same division level some leagues have 15 or 16 human managers and others have 3? How is this fair for higher divisions where there are no bots and the competition is harder and how is this fair towards nations like Italy or Spain where D4 is the lowest level with bots when most countries have D2 or D3 with bots?
Note that a losing streak with PD requirement against human managers does not have this problem

2) Did you consider what kind of inflationary effect this measure would have? Since the rule requires winning and not just competing well enough and it's based on the cash you have in the bank and not the weekly income, it stands to reason that the best way to avoid this is overpaying for players not to improve the team, but to lower the bank account: park the money in some player, any player: the higher the price and the lower the salary, the better. I suppose this is a welcome side effect, if you think prices even higher than now are good for the game?

3) You still haven't explained what you think someone can buy with 2.25 million or 5 million in the current economic environment. What does that equal in your opinion in terms of number of valuable players (i.e. not 34 or 35 yo) you can get? Your change would still be inferior than the alternative, but at least make some sense, if the thresholds were high enough to allow people to really improve their teams before they face penalties. Like this you just force them to stash away money in players by overpaying or buying old players who are a bad long term investment.

This measure does not hit most tanking teams (the ones playing bots). This measure is inflationary. This measure makes it harder for genuinely bad teams to catch up, or teams hit by injuries, or teams training. This measure was announced 1 week into the new season AFTER the offseason was already over, people had made decisions and games had been played (even more shamefully the details were published 2 weeks into the new season).

I dare you to answer any of the points above. Probably it would be a good thing if you finally contribute something to the discussion. At least Manon would be happy.

Last edited by Lemonshine at 12/28/2016 7:13:25 PM

I wanna add one thing.

After the change to salary floors if I tanked in D3 I would make almost as much money as tanking in D1...D3 has bots in most countries in BB.

Now ask yourself a question and give yourself an answer, thank you.

Last edited by Lemonshine at 12/28/2016 7:25:41 PM

One thing i can think of that is important when it comes to new features is how much changing it requires to the GE code.

Eh that's the final nail in the coffin to end all discussions and proposals: it can't be done because our dev can't or doesn't want to do it or it can't be done because it affects the GE! Discussion over.

I find it really hard for a code to have such an impact considering it applies a haircut to the gate receipts or the weekly profit AFTER they are calculated normally. Incidentally a haircut on profit would have been better for a number of reasons I don't want to explain here since they play to my advantage and it seems none of you have realised it yet.

Perpete says it's hard to calculate PD: I don't believe that. BBAPI allows you to distinguish easily between a human and a bot and that's all I need to know to understand that removing bots from the calculations is absolutely doable and since the haircuts are applied ex post after the other calculations there is also no impact on the GE. If Marin said this was impossible then we have bigger issues I suppose.

Maybe you should have claimed that this thing would stress the servers too much if calculated after every game. I would have answered that it could have been part of the Monday update, so calculated once a week.

It seems to me you're all defending a losing horse because you have to. Nobody is able to answer simple, direct questions and the prevailing argument is "it may impact the GE, we don't know it it does". Come on, you start the usual crusade about negativity and then you shy away when challenged directly? I still haven't heard a single answer or does it cost you personally to admit that those are legitimate concerns and evident flaws in the approach that has been chosen?

Looking at the top 5 leagues in England, there are currently 3 teams at 0/6. Two of those are playing at home their 7th game of the season.

One of my points is exactly that it doesn't affect many people, in case it wasn't clear. In particular it does not affect tanking teams in leagues with bots, do we agree?

The problem of anti tanking measures is not catching the obvious ones who lose all games by a gazillion points and they log in once a month. The problem is not applying the penalties to those who don't deserve it. This change does the first thing (doh), but it does the second very poorly. I hope this is clear once and for all: nobody is saying that the current measures will not hit some of the obvious tanking teams, they will, just like any other proposals on this subject that was mentioned in the last 3 years.

The fact that you don't want to exempt training and the fact that this measure is not on profit but on revenues is precisely one of the problems. You wanted to favour training didn't you? This change ignores the cost of the staff which, for training teams, is normally a lot higher than the average. In fact if I didn't train and I was trying to tank, I'd use Wolph technique and spend less than 1k on staff. So why didn't you protect training? Do you want people buying decrepit players to try and win some games instead of having them spend the money on trainers and create new players?

I read that 5 millions doesn't buy you anything these days. It's false.

I've never said that. I said I think an average starter in D1-D2 costs around 2 million and I also asked, repeatedly, what people think you can buy with 2 million and with 5 million, so we can go on the TL and check if it's plausible. I'm sure different people have different expectations on this, but everyone talks about it in general terms as if it means something obvious to everyone. It isn't the same for everybody. Let's be a little bit more concrete, so we can understand what it really means in practice, shall we? Please?


Last edited by Lemonshine at 12/29/2016 5:24:32 AM