BuzzerBeater Forums

It might have fit better on the suggestions forum, but I'm finding this more of a big design bug.

On our league, there is a player with 68K value on the age of 28, who had been peeked at the start of the season.
This is outrageous.
This is a free peek for the NT manager, who is "coincidentally" a manager on the same league. And same conference on that league!

Moreover, it is clear (comparing that player to other players on our NT team), that this player should not have been on the NT list for few seasons.

So it seems that this behavior repeats itself.

I think that it is not fair to give any manager that knowledge.
A manager of a team will love having is player on an NT, and will share the information at will upon request.

One can argue that it might not be the case, but what about an NT player who plays on the same country he may represent?

In addition, the game should block trying to peek on players that are that far away from being relevant for the NT teams.

And on any player that plays at the same league that the NT manager plays at.


SUMMARY EDIT:
Two rules:
"Break-even" - a team on the same league as the NT, would get to peek back in order of keeping competitiveness equality.

"Is NT-Legit" - auto verification that will define whether a peek is reasonable, in order of preventing bad feeling between MGRs and toward the fairness of the game

Last edited by Pini פיני at 7/2/2015 4:41:14 PM

Please move it to where you find it fit.

PS - Your answer is wrong and a bad one.

Usually there aren't too much players that one might check. On any league.
And even less times that it will bother someone.
But even if it is exploited "just" once, it is enough to call it a design bug.

As this wrong behavior could easily be avoided with a better design by adding a limitation (that I explained which), I find is something that should be handled.

No.

1) On the relevant position - PF/C there is only a single player with close enough salary (and still about 14K more in salary) [82K compared to just 68K].
The thing that makes it "a little bit" different is that player got that price tag at age of 25, and until he will finished training (or event at the end of current year) he will get to the same area of the others NT players (which stands around 130K salary and above).
Not close to the peeked player discussed (28yo with 68K salary that will not change much if at all).

2) Penalty is relevant only after season starts.
Knowing the skills of a player of 28 years of age (for example), at the start of a season, gives manager all information needed when the matchup presents itself.

Last edited by Pini פיני at 6/28/2015 4:33:07 PM

1) It doesn't matter if the advantage is 10% or 20%.
Any advantage caused due to corruption should be handled.

2) That player is a 28yo PF/C, with 68K salary.
He will never fit a NT that contains 130K (or above) of salary on that position.

In contrary,
the 25yo exception on the ISR NT is a player of 82K of salary that is still develping enough (due to his age).
He will get to the same level of salary (of 130K), or at least has a realy good chance.

3) Not surprising, that 25yo is part of the NT, as a sweetener for his manager, so he will continue training him.

The 28yo, with zero chance to get there is not.

He was just peeked for the sake of peeking.

4) If one would have said to you, wait until the election to your government.
Until then just be quiet about the government corruption.
In case that would be the claim.
Would you agree with that?
Probably not.

Summarizing my side;
A) Peeking is when reviewing skills of a player that there is zero chance that will ever be NT legit.
B) Even when only one manager suffers, and even if it affects only 20% or 10%, corruption is corruption, and is needed to be handled.
C) No reason (for the game) to stand still and wait for a corruption to end with the NT campaign period.
D) There is an easy solution - preventing it for hapenning by proper rules of peek-allowance.


Last edited by Pini פיני at 6/28/2015 5:09:19 PM

There is rules about how you can select players, how much, when if you want to avoid penality.

I don't understand this sentence on the context discussed.
That player should have not been allowed to be peeked without his manager acceptance.
If he was NT-legit, then it was a whole new ball-game, but he is not, and will never be. [and is not for a few seasons]
It is even not my player! I am not acting for my own benefit but for the benefit of the game.

What you define as "corruption" is not corruption.

I'll rephrase;
It might be or might not be a corruption
It is still something that might give unfair advantage and should be avoided.
And easily could be

If you drop players from the NT roster, the NT takes an enthusiasm hit.