BuzzerBeater Forums

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

So if you really want answers to these kind of questions you should direct them to someone that actually can answer them.

Which I have. I called out to those who voted for this change to explain it to us and address our concerns, but I didn't get any answer to my questions.

You can see the questions I've asked Foto and you can reply yourself:
- Do we agree this change does nothing where there are bots? Yes or no?
- Do we agree this change does not discriminate whether someone is losing because he has a crap team, or several injuries or he's training a lot of young players? Yes or no
- Do we agree that if you spend a lot of money for staff because you're training you'll be hit harder than if you dont? Yes or no?
- Do we agree that this change will still penalise a team even though they may be on a winning streak (like my team which started 0-8)? Yes or no?

Simple questions, I can't really put it in simpler terms.

Sub 100 TSP centers under 30 years go for more than 2.5 million these days.

100 TSP guards under 30 go for 2.5 mil to 3.6 million.

That is not the standard you can make big leaps in DIV I.

Normally this is in lower level leagues where we see new teams though so i guess that's a good thing?

a) not necessarily in lower leagues; b) I already explained the difference between tanking in D1 and D3 is currently not that big in terms of weekly profit (I know because I can see the economy for both)

No matter what the fans will start dropping whatever the reason is if you fill the requirements for it.

Good so it does not discriminate. Now, do you think it's fair to lump together teams who tank, teams with key injuries and teams who train young players? Note that the fan boycott is being sold as an anti-tanking measure.

since we all know the rules i'm thinking it cant be all that hard to adapt.

Yes adapting means not training or choosing worse trainers and doctors. Either way you are penalising training and training was the one thing that was admittedly put above everything else, as many taxes and changes have been implemented to make training more appealing.

Perhaps I should explain how to get staff with $1 salary so everyone can do it.

You are being penalized for having been on a losing streak.

Exactly which makes no sense in both game and real life comparisons. Say LeBron is injured and the Cavs lose 7 straight. He come back and they win 5 straight but nobody shows up at their games. Sure it makes sense.

Note that with your view the opposite should also be true: if you had a winning streak followed by a losing streak people would still come and see you. THIS is why it was always proposed that anti tanking is based on the current streak so you don't have carry over effects (both positive or negative). If you're really using this argument, based on what logic a bad stretch can affect you for a season (50%/5%=10, so 9 home games) and a good stretch does not affect you in any way?

Last edited by Lemonshine at 12/29/2016 6:20:35 AM