BuzzerBeater Forums

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

#1 PLEASE don't make it only about JS. This will killl the team play of the game. PA and HA have to be a factor. Easier said than done I know. I don't have enough data, but what I am seeing so far, HA/PA/JR seem to mean a lot less, as does OD...and it seems like JS is all you need. I hate that idea. Jumpshooters are crap without a team to back them, and like Memphis beating GS in game two, good defence will foil the best shooters in the world. (well at least for 1 game...who knows how the rest of the series will pan out!!!)

I assure you, it's not only JS that you need. I cannot disclose details especially since I would really need to check the code again to remind me of how it exactly works but I am certain of that, it's not enough to have just JS! Also, thanks for the Memphis - GS spoiler, I was planning to watch a replay of it now... Just kidding! But don't tell me any other results though

The other thing I would like to get clear is that is there a correlation between age and skill points (example, x age has to be at y skill points to be FA) or is there like a set minimum of points a player is needed after 18 years?

The minimum grows with age, following a mathematical function. There, I've already said too much

1) ... Long story short, are you worried about the ability for a new owner to compete giving the finances they have coming in now with 300k in immediate funds and 200k over several weeks of new GM cash?

2) With regards to new owners again, I find that a common obstacle between a failing new owner and a good new owner is the understanding of the impacts of Gameshape and Enthusiasm. I attempt to occasionally contact a new owner and explain how they can better manage these aspects of the game to improve their ability to manage their team, but i feel we could be doing more to improve this area of the explanation of the game so that more may stick around. I don't have any ideas here other than perhaps a rewording of enthusiasm (gameshape is easier to learn by trial and error), but thought maybe passing along my thoughts to get discussion or thinking going on something that wouldn't take too long to fix.

3) Because of the US offsite chat, many times i can see the concerns of other teams, and one such concern was the Transfer List Estimate and the implication of fines being hit or miss. I feel the Transfer policing is inadequate given the current enforcement, and is only acted upon mostly if the users police it, leading to some cases being dealt with unfairly in comparison to the market conditions. Sometimes i feel the user in question has begged someone with money to save him financially and thats not within the spirit of the game, sometimes i feel there is some evidence of 'sour grapes' in the chatrooms and it leads to reports being filed for Transfers that aren't that far out of what i consider realistic. Without pointing out specifics, what do you feel about the TPE and the enforcement overall, and how necessary it remains.

1) I feel it's enough, even though the market is changing. Maybe you don't remember, but for a long time, the market prices were even higher. New managers need to practice moderation, not going on splurges. Also, bigger starting money, more fuel for potential cheaters.
2) I don't think it is that hard to explain the difference nor that the wording is unsatisfatory. You are entitled to your opinion, ofcourse.
3) TPE is just an estimate, and cannot be used in all cases. I like it, it serves a purpose, giving new users a "feel" for the market, but it cannot replace experience. Human estimation (by an experienced GM, for example) is much better at estimating real player value. That there might be the reason why you think the fines are hit and miss. Could TPE be better? Of course, but it can never be perfect.
Bailouts are not allowed and should be reported. Everything that is reported is investigated and acted upon, if deemed necessary. Just keep reporting.

Hi, darling.

I would like you to increase the number of Saved Searchs from 3 to 6, for example. And the same with the number of Favourite players/staff/games: from 50 to 100, for example. I think that both quantities are currently too small to be completely useful for the most experienced managers.

In the past, new GE changes were always announced and tested in scrimmages and PL. Are you saying that changes to the GE have been incrementally made w/o the knowledge of us players?

Big changes have always been announced, and that remains true. Small tweaks haven't.

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?

We are doing everything in little steps, salaries, GE changes, etc..., as we don't want to overcompensate. Overcompensation is what brought this situation on in the first place. That's why we have employed the GDP, in an attempt to make managers diversify their tactics usage. We believe this has been a successful strategy so far, but it's a long term process and it takes a long time to see the effects. I didn't say the changes are less than expected, they are just less than what he expected. We will continue pursuing this rather conservative approach.
A salary adjustment is possible at the start of next season. If, which skills and how much is still not known, but I can assure you, it won't be by much.

What are your top priorities for the near future?

The same applies as here (267318.42), so this is not a full list nor is it a fixed one. Also, you'll noticed some things have remained from last season:
- another fan survey update (the "I am familiar with the star players" bit)
- deal with inside based strategy dominance
- BB app - prepare a special developers API for it (so we can use outside developers without giving them direct access to the db)
- boost social media presence (Facebook contest? etc...)
- implement global team switch button
- handle adblocker?
- deal with tanking
- make past bids more visible (longer?)
- revise some of the offensive and defensive tactic effects (make them better)
- think about in-game sponsorships
...

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.

Yes and no. We are planning on tweaking some of the tactics, but I cannot promise that new ones will be added. The idea sounds interesting, but I'd rather make what we already have work than add new ones. The best thing about the GDP is exactly that - it makes you diversify. So it isn't something that will bring to overcompensation.
1. that may be true
2. see what I wrote above

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.

1. No.
2. No. The ranking doesn't matter.
3. I guess you're asking if it's harder to train a high skill than a low one, right? In that case, the simple answer would be yes. If you're asking if 20 - 19 is greater than 2 - 1 then no.
4. No.
5. No.
6. Can any player truly be maxed out? How would we even calculate what a player can reach since training varies by a lot of factors. Why have a 30yo Hall of Famer in a new team? These players will serve their purpose, but it is not implied that every player can or should reach his potential. The false hope is not implied either, it is something you, the managers, constructed. We cannot control that.

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.

Hi, it's Marin, not Martin, and this thread is not a suggestions or feature request thread. I know others have already used it just for that, but I guess I have to draw the line somewhere. Have you noticed that your no.1 statement is the same as no.3? To give you a quick answer, no we don't plan on implementing any of the mentioned suggestions.

No Buzzerbeater App = no long term future for the game

Am I a pessimist or a realist?

You can see the future? I'd call you a psychic

I would like you to increase the number of Saved Searchs from 3 to 6, for example. And the same with the number of Favourite players/staff/games: from 50 to 100, for example. I think that both quantities are currently too small to be completely useful for the most experienced managers.

We'll think about it.

Last edited by BB-Marin at 5/7/2015 7:38:56 AM

This concludes it! See you next time!