BuzzerBeater Forums

you are using an assumption (Massive income bonus due to changes in the promotion system) to justify a suggestion. I'm really disappointed in this particular part.

I'm in danger of going off topic here, but in the hope that responding to something a GM has said protects me in this instance, I'd like to reply to this, especially as this is something I've posted on frequently.

If this is an assumption, its one that has been forced on us by the lack of a response from BBs to my, and others' repeated questions on the topic in other threads. Leaving aside rules about politeness and other such niceties, we all try to manage our teams by planning for the future. This includes financial decisions which can have repercussions over several seasons. For this, stability of the economy is an absolute necessity, or we can't function properly as managers. Without proper communication of rule changes, confusion and its brother chaos ensues, as we already are seeing.

This is all bad for the game.

If this assumption is incorrect, it can only be because the extra promoted teams won't be getting bonuses. I find this very unlikely and I would also be very against this, as I think would most people.

i'm going to give you one chance, to provide a link to anything where a BB explicitly mentioned bonus income (Bonus income meaing more income than a user would normally get if he/she promotes. If they did make such a post, then i'll gladly eat my words and i'd owe you an apology. If not, then you owe me a serious apology & should reread the game manual very carefully (especially the part about the forum rules. i'll be kind enough to provide you with a link for it: http://www.buzzerbeater.com/community/rules.aspx?nav=Foru... ) since you've clearly failed to uphold them in your last forum post. (even in the event that you find some proof, i'll be kind enough to look the other way and let you edit out your comments as a proof of my goodwill)

And if i should have misinterpretend your post, then sorry for it, but it also means that you failed to make it clear enough.

Good luck finding a post in which the BB's mention bonus income! i somehow doubt you'll find it (ow and simple reminder: the date should be from something before your post was made.)

Last edited by AthrunZala at 1/24/2017 6:43:31 AM

Since I'm partly responsible for this I'm going to wade in.

i'm going to give you one chance, to provide a link to anything where a BB explicitly mentioned bonus income

I've been repeatedly asking for clarification about this and received none, even when politely asking, since it is a very important matter.

Absent such clarification, I, and others, were forced to decide whether the BBs would allow teams to promote without giving any bonuses whatsoever. I think we all decided nobody would be so cruel as to make teams promote and not give them any cash at all, in addition to missing out on the promotion bonus to attendances. Those teams would be crippled. So we quite rightly hypothesised that bonuses would be given.

If there is any fault here, its with the BBs for posting such a vague announcement, and leaving us in the dark, about what is, in my view, an extremely important matter, since it is such a massive change to the game.

If an apology is due, its from the BBs.

which brings me back to my point of it all being assumption (absent proof) being used to justification for motivating a change.

which justifies my post of remending him (and community) that using assumptions to justify suggestions is the wrong way to go about things.

I'm trying, in a kind and fair way, to point out flaws in idea's
If it's due to a misinterpretation, then that means one has to be more clear (something which you seem to agree on.) Saying that because someone has been vague (the BB's in your case) allows you to then be vague in return, means nobody will get anywhere.

However, if i point out that using assumptions is the wrong way to go around doing bussiness and then get attacked for it personally, (which it is) then as a normal user, i think i'm very kind with the treatment i'm providing, set aside from the fact that i'm giving him a chance at redemption, instead of instantly laying down the law as a GM (wtich i've been trained to do and which i'm supposed to do). I'm giving this particular user a chance to come back his story up, which is more than many would have gotten. I'm giving him a shot at earning an apology from me, not to mention look away for the fact he clearly felt the need to personally attack me. If anything, i think i'm being extremely fair and lenient here.

If there is any fault here, its with the BBs for posting such a vague announcement, and leaving us in the dark, about what is, in my view, an extremely important matter, since it is such a massive change to the game.

If an apology is due, its from the BBs.

Since we've entered the highjacking topic zone, i might aswell put this in:

am i then to understand that you'd prefer the BB's not to mention the fact that they are looking at changes in the promotion system, only for you to find out that they've changed it at the start of next season? If anything, the community now has time to prepare for changes. The fact that more clarity hasn't been shed on the matter, means that it's still under construction and that once a full idea has been worked out and is ready for implementation, then i'd expect more information concerning that to be shared.

either the community is complaining that they aren't being informed fast enough. and then are informed, then they are complaining that the information is to vague. You've been granted information about a change is on the way that will be implemented in the future (at the earliest season 38). that gives you at the very least a full season (s38) to addapt to it, as well as the fact that during the current season (s37) you are made aware that changes are abound. that more time to prepare to changes than you had in the past!

If anything, i'd consider it progress. You can say it's not perfect, but it's progress compared to the past. Now you can either focus on the negative part, or you can be happy about the positive part and hope that the BB's will improve their communication for the future.

Now as much as i appreciate you trying to defend a community member (which shows solidarity, which is good for a community) there is someone who has to face the consequences for his prior post (in particular his personal attack). I'm not in the mood for games, since this is the 3rd time within 7 day's a user has felt the need to have a go at me and there is a limit to my kindness, which has been reached. So unless you have proof to help out your fellow community member (proving that his comments aren't just assumptions) then there isn't much value added to by making your post. (nor in my part as to why i've answered your forum post, tho i'll chalk that one up to me trying to provide answer to what i can.

So this suggestion went off topic quick however I have thought of an amendment to the rule.

Recap :
The idea was to add a training spot. This was the ability to select a player to automatically receive training minutes each week. The training would be the same as what you are training currently. The minutes would count towards game shape.

Amendment:
The player in the training spot has to be 21 years old or younger.

hey ghunter,

could you work out your idea with an example? i'm still confused on multiple area's (selecting a player to get training minutes, which also counts towards the GS. does that mean he plays 24 minutes, but gets a total of 72 minutes for the 48 minutes he receives from training? or do you mean the minutes he played during a week at a non training position are taken into account for the minutes of training he receives?

Also, elaborate on the reasoning behind the amendment pls. cause i could counter it with some examples, but i'd rather be certain i'm understanding your idea completely before i shed my views onto it. Cause currently i find it slightely to vague.

So if you could just go with an example of a couple of players (amount of minutes they played in each game) and how the minutes would count etc, then that would be helpfull for me.

No problem.

This will be an addition to the current system. Currently you select your training and the desired position(s) each week and the player(s) playing in the position(s) get the benefits. What the training spot does is allow the user to select a player who will automatically receive 48 minutes worth of time in the position you selected for training.

The goal of this would be to increase the amount of players being trained, giving value to lower potential players and ultimately making it cheaper for new users to improve their team. However I didn't want it being abused by people using it to stop age drops or making top players even better.

This is why I suggested the minutes counting towards game shape, so people using it on their best players suffer a penalty in player performance. But as you say the game shape bit is confusing and I think it could be difficult to code/implement into the game. Therefore I am now thinking of removing that part of the suggestion but including an age restriction on the players able to use the training spot. Probably having to be 21 or younger. I'll still give an example of both cases.

Case A (Counts towards game shape, no age restriction):
You select Pressure at PG as your training and select Smith as the player in the training spot. This is equivalent to Smith playing a full game at PG. Therefore any more time on the court at any position would contribute to game shape. For example Smith plays 35 minutes at SF on Saturday and then 35 minutes at SG on Tuesday. Then his total minutes that week is (48+35+35)=118 which would give him poor game shape.

Case B (Age restriction, no effect on game shape)
You select Pressure at PG as your training and select Bob (who is 20) as the player in the training spot. This will show Bob has 48+ minutes on the training table automatically. This is like selecting team training, all players have 48+ minutes automatically and it doesn’t count towards game shape, however it is for one player and one position.

Hopefully this clears things up and any feedback is welcome.

i like option A. and since it counts towards Gameshape, it is punishing enough as such. i doubt teams would want 100k players to sit out a week just for some training purpose... However, if you want to be safe, you could put a salary limit in combination with option A. that would take away any incentive use it to train side players. Alternative to the salary restriction would be an age restriction, but the age restriction should be low enough (i'd put it at 22 or 23, which is the age you can train allstars or perenial allstars before they start being hard capped).

i reckon that if the salary is high enough, you won't want to give them 48 minutes, meaning they can't play for the team during that week (unless you sacrifice their GS). so for that reason, i'd be more in favor of adding a age restriction ontop of your option A, instead of going with a salary restriction (cause then everyone will be making SF's...)

I can see the merites off it. you'd get more talent out on the market, which could bring some prices down, while giving faster improvements to teams who do train players, meaning they can go up faster.

I'm not seeing any downsides that hugely outweight the upside the idea has. Although it might be hard to implement. still, i like the idea if there is some trade off to the free training minutes. the examples clarifies enough for me. up to the BB's to check it out now.

Thanks for reading the suggestion and the feedback.

I guess deciding what the age restriction should be, is something that could be debated. I would prefer to set it lower (e.g. U21) so more players are being trained. I feel players aged 22 or 23 who have received 3 or 4 seasons worth of training should be capable of making the bench to receive training minutes. Having it at U21 will also force users to select a new player for the training spot more frequently resulting in more players being trained to a respectable level.

Last edited by ghunter at 5/3/2017 11:16:17 AM