BuzzerBeater Forums

Obviously, this thread has moved from a new feature feedback thread to a discussion on whether this should even be implemented, even though I've warned against this. I'm not happy about most of the posts here as they are neither on topic nor constructive.

The past few months, I feel like the BBs have cultivated an environment that encourages player feedback -- playerbase expansion discussions, the Utopia implementation debate, season feedback threads, BB activity on the forums, etc. Making a relatively minor and entirely technical change in the middle of the season and asking for player TESTING without OPINION is very odd. We're not the beta team or QA guys. You could have just posted a news article that it was happening and then checked the results yourself. If you didn't want opinions, I don't think you should open the lines of communication. It's not clear what other purpose this thread could serve.

It's not even clear to me where you're drawing the "constructive" line but here's my comment on this feature:
I like Blank lineups, but I do think they're too strong. I think it would be better to "buff" other options than "nerf" blank lineups. SFDC should be the best, but currently it has far too many problems (all-backup lineups on court, high stamina players ruining gameshape, injuries/foul outs totally destroying your rotation, etc.). I haven't played Hattrick much but don't they have a pretty well-thought-out substitution system? How about more features and more options instead of fewer? I've always wanted to make a team with a Nick Young / Jamal Crawford 6th-man shooter type off the bench, but it just doesn't work very well with the options provided.

Even if you plan on sticking to your guns and removing Blank, you're going about it the wrong way. The News post and this thread are very unclear about what's happening. How is the Blank lineup being prevented? What happens if you try to use one? It seems like you're creating a trap that will only frustrate users. If you want to remove the feature, why let the lineup be submitted as Blank at all? You're talking about "countermeasures"?? Just put in some red text when you try to submit it that "Your coach doesn't understand this depth chart". At season rollover invalidate existing default lineups which may be set as blank and there you go, it's effectively extinct and you don't need player testing or this thread at all.

"Just think of it as if the coach never got the match depth chart and decided to go with his own vision instead. "... isn't this what blanking does already? The coach decides and sticks who he thinks should get minutes at different positions and it works out pretty well. How is this different?

It's different in that it will be a forfeit if you don't set your lineup. Now AI coach picks for you.

I set 3 players.
PG
A/A/A
SG
B/C/C
SF
Blank
PF
Blank
C
Blank

Let Coach Decide.

Coach picked starters and they were not A. C was played in A's spot. B played in B's spot until he fouled out. Then he was replaced by my worst backup.

Every other starter picked by the coach played 45 minutes.

Surely this is not what is to be expected?

(71953755)


Let the coach decided...

Difference between starters and bench is very big

Behave like a "Strictly" until Garbage....


This sounds like a strange mix.

I set a full blank lineup for today's PL game: http://www.buzzerbeater.com/match/71980201/reportMatch.as.... It's still in progress as I write this

So far, it looks better; only a single player subsituted at a time. This game is a blow out, so I can't say if this is typical of an experience. Also, the coach appears to pick good starters given the skillsets they have. I don't know if he is going to put in the backups in the 4th, but I would assume he would. I will edit this post to let you know if he does.

I don't mean this as a criticism, but I'm curious: are you going to change the substitution patterns of other substition options?

edit: it looks like the starters did come out. I do have some interesting choices at PF, but I think that's an artifact of my team not having any "true" bigs (the guy at C made sense, even though he is listed as an SF).

I did not notice any crazy substitutions or the coach moving players around like crazy as you "normally" would in a LCD/blank. I'm assuming that was the point of this tweek?

Last edited by tictacshack at 7/11/2014 8:27:29 PM

(71980393) I put 10 players on my roster, but did not assign any spots and Let the Coach Decide. Everyone was substituted normally except for my PF. He played 47 minutes.

My private game
LCD
Substitution was normally
I'm happy :D
(71987302)

First off, a word to the managers that tested the feature this Friday: the new BL prevention code was implemented at 6:30 PM CET (12:30 PM server time). Before that, the old game engine was used. That might be the reason why some games were affected, others didn't. We did that to make sure we didn't affect training again. Looks like the new code worked nicely. For lineups with less than 2 starters set, the new code calculated best for all of the empty spots and set the depth chart accordingly. Also, backups were set for all 5 positions the same way. If there were any games (that started after the implementation) that don't fit the picture, please let me know.

And now, a more detailed explanation or the reasons behind the change and strategy implementation description.

Why this blank line up option is being removed?
Blank lineup option was never meant to be a feature. It is an inadvertent unintentional result of a combination of settings. This is something that can happen in all complex systems like our own BB. We're not ashamed to admit that it was never meant to be this way and we believe that the BL "tactic" is something that gives some users unfair advantage in a match while at the same time saving them from having to buy and pay salaries for a larger set of players that they would otherwise need. Also, this gives the advantage of having almost perfect minutes every match. All for the price of having less control for training minutes (even though training is still possible!). As you can see, the balance of advantages vs tradeoffs is highly disturbed here.

Aren't there other things more urgent that need fixing? Like walkovers and game shape training?
We have worked hard for a long time on this code. It has taken seasons, without exaggeration. It's not only time to test and implement it, it's way past due. Had the situations with blank lineups improved during that time, we wouldn't implement it, but we don't believe it has.
We don't deny that there are other things that need to be addressed, but we can to fix one thing at a time.
While still not ideal, walkovers are still a part of this game. We cannot force users to supply enough players or to even have them in their rosters to start with. However, since so many users think they are a big problem, we will discuss the possible solutions and try to find one, but that's something that needs to be discussed more in detail in another thread.
Game shape training is similar in some ways, as it is a topic that needs more investigation on it's own. Is it overpowered? Maybe, the general consensus seems to be leaning that way, but the fact is that it is usually paired with blank lineups. Will BL prevention maybe offset the need to lower the effect of game shape training? Will other possible planned changes, like the stamina effect on game shape for all training types lower that need too? We don't know, time will tell. On the other hand, sacrificing training for a better game shape is a big tradeoff, so the claim that it is overpowered still needs to be confirmed and discussed. In another thread, of course.

Continued in the next post...