BuzzerBeater Forums

Hi Marin, here is my question.

Neutralizing the dominance of inside based strategies is one of your main priorities for quite some time now as we all know it. What is your plan for dealing with it? Are you planning to fix it just by making some adjustments on game engine or else do you consider introducing some changes on salary formula (let's say charging some skills less or more than what they are now) as you've already done with jump range and shot blocking skills? It seems that you already implement some small changes(on game engine) on a regular basis and stand back to observe their effects. Yet, it looks like it will take more time for you to establish the balance you're looking for(few posts ago you said that the outcomes of changes are less significant than what you expected.).

So, could we expect a new salary formula readjustment in the near future?

Thank you.





Last edited by TrojanEmpire at 5/6/2015 10:13:40 PM

By the way sir, this is one of the best question ask last time. What are your top priorities for the near future?

I'll try to sneak this in while it's still May 6: Are there any plans to create more balanced defensive options? Currently you have a 3/2 zone to combat outside offenses as well as the "extreme option" of a 1-3-1. To combat inside offenses you only have a 2-3 zone which many managers don't even use because for whatever reason, it just isn't effective. Most top level managers simply use a M2M against teams they know will run an inside offense.

I realize the GDP was put in place partially to make LI a little more vulnerable, but outside teams can have that used against them just as effectively as inside teams can. I also realize that it may just be up to managers to figure out how to use the 2-3 zone, however:

1. It seems rough that the only inside defense isn't really effective and
2. It would be nice if there was a inside equivalent to the 1-3-1 to be used as an "extreme option" for inside defense.

Good evening.

I have a few questions that I'm hoping the BB's could touch on and provide insight to.

1. Is there a difference in training effectiveness between a Basic, Competent, Advanced, ..., etc trainer when training Free Throws, Stamina, or Game Shape?

2. Is there a difference, even marginally, between getting a player 49 mins training and getting him, lets say, 60 mins of training. The reason I ask is because I notice that the training frame on our Manage My Team screen will rank players, regardless of age, by minutes played at the position. 48+ isn't equal. If one player played 56 mins at PG in a Passing training regimen, he will be ranked higher on the list with a 48+ label than the player with 49 minutes of training also with a 48+ label.

3. Is the skill level increase from a 1 (Atrocious) to a 2 (Pitiful) in a skill like Passing any different than an increase from an 19 (Colossal) to a 20 (Legendary) in the same skill (Passing)? In other words, is the skill increase from level to level linear, or is it curved (like a logarithmic curve or something to that effect)?

4. Is there a stronger home court advantage during the playoffs when compared to during a regular season game?

5. Will specialties on Staff Members be more effective the higher skill level they are? For example, will an Advanced Crowd Involvement PR-Manager do more for your home court advantage than a Basic Crowd Involvement PR-Manager would?

6. Is it impossible to max out a Hall of Fame draft pick if drafted at 19 years old, given that they have starting total skill points in the 50's or lower? If so, why even create them? It gives false hope to the manager and could potentially waste A LOT of time.

I hope that these questions can, at the minimum, be touched on.

EEDSON

Last edited by EEDSON at 5/7/2015 12:21:35 AM

For number 3, I think it's logarithmic. Think of FT percentages. The higher a player's FT is, the lower amount of increase you'll get in made FTs (in comparison to the skill level before it). I have a player with 4 FT and another with 2 FT. The one with 4 FT made about 60% of his attempts last season, while the player with 2 FT made 48%. Compared those percentages to another player with atrocious FT. He made close to 41% of his attempts. I'll also add that all 3 players attempted at least 40 FTs.

Seeing that the difference between the first and second guy is 12%, and the second guy to the third is 7%, I can vouch for the skill increases being logarithmic.

The smart thing would be improving the FG% on open shots. You yourself have pointed out many times inconsistencies where a very poor outside shooting C hits 75% of his trees (while guarded) and an over the top SG only manages a meager 30% (even on open shots). I do hope that the change in the GE is this kind of change and not an increase/decrease of effectiveness of some skill throughout.

In any case, I completely support the idea of very small incremental changes, although I don't see why they shouldn't give us an idea of what the plan is in the long term, so that we can prepare for it (without giving us the details). It's as if they said "we made adjustments to inside defense, but you need to figure out yourself what changed" when they boosted the effectiveness of SB. If they did that, probably you'd see people starting to train SB consistently about now, not a year ago, because first you'd need to figure out what changed and how much.

I think it's fair that we know if the change impacts the GE (ie. penalty to team defense on open shots) or skills effectiveness (ie. boost to JR or a combination of skills), even if no additional information is given and I think this kind of long term plans should be announced so that people can test them and modify their training plans. After all, building players to take advantage of the changes takes seasons and if the BBs want to see results right away with the current players available, my money is on the changes being much larger than they intend them to be.

Last edited by Lemonshine at 5/7/2015 5:40:41 AM

hi martin.
1. I would like to hear your opinion about my
idea: Add opportunity to draw play - calls.
I think that can help a lot....
2. Suggestions for preparing for the expansion of the game ... I wanted to propose to expand the preparations and tactics for each game. Before each game, each team will get a page with the pros and cons of the opponent scores a three-or put a bullet inside. Where its weaknesses and where she sees strong advantages and disadvantages and to activate the team accordingly.
3. I would like to hear your opinion about my
idea: Add opportunity to draw play - calls.
I think that can help a lot....
4.I thought of an idea to make the Cup more interesting to get all the bots and make houses with four teams in each House. One of each League. And then there's more interest and more likely to be surprises.
5. make BBB for all leagus.

No Buzzerbeater App = no long term future for the game

Am I a pessimist or a realist?

Last edited by Sid Vicious at 5/7/2015 6:13:36 AM