BuzzerBeater Forums

OK, thank you everyone for your help and persistence (especially Karangula). This *feature* is still definitely far from ready and will not be implemented at the beginning of this season. Maybe later on? We'll see.

So far, we hadn't made much progress due to the fact that the testing parameters were too great. This is something I intend to fix. Let's start with the basics...

1. A change in the code: if there's less than 4 starters set, the *feature* will kick in. This means that you need to set at least 3 starters in order to avoid the new code wiping out all of the starting lineup and setting a completely new one on it's own.

2.Reporting: I love the way Karangula and darkonza report their testing and would advise everyone to adopt a similar format. If you don't know what I mean, check out this post (259887.127) and this one (259887.116). I'd love to get a combination of those, so here's a template:

Match link: {the link to the match}
Sub strategy: {LCD for example}
Lineup set: {if any, leave empty if none set, make sure to confirm the lineup after the match by loading in in the tactics page}
PG
SG
SF
PF
C

Lineup started: {the exact minutes would be great, but considering how hard it is to get them, a subjective approach also works}
PG
SG
SF
PF
C

High number of substitutions: {yes/no}
Opponent had a high number of substitutions: {yes/no}

3. Effectiveness: Determining the success of the *feature*; I need to know if the game had the great amount of substitutions that's usual for BL/LCD games, since that is a sure way of seeing if the lineup was filled by the new code. If it wasn't, the substitutions start almost instantly at the beginning of the match and keep happening at almost every chance.

4. Methodology: first of all, let's test if the code works on a very narrow set of parameters and then change one thing at a time. So, as a first step, I'd like everyone to try and set a true LCD/BL with as many players in the roster as available. Completely empty depth chart, LCD, full roster. Next week try setting a full depth chart, LCD, full roster. Then alternate and report the findings. Once we see if there are any differences, we'll move on.

Hopefully, this should be a start of getting somewhere with this. Thank you everyone for participating, I really appreciate it.

1. A change in the code: if there's less than 4 starters set, the *feature* will kick in. This means that you need to set at least 3 starters in order to avoid the new code wiping out all of the starting lineup and setting a completely new one on it's own.

Is it less than four or less than three? And do we need to test having backups filled in vs. leaving the backups blank, or is it just going based on the starters?

I am confused.

First of all, blank lineup really seems to be the least of the worries with this game. Second of all, how efficient can the testing be using the user base as the testing sample? Especially in at for fun leagues.

I will just say there are much bigger concerns than the one aspect that remotely reflects real basketball on this game. I still have no clue as to why this is a feature you want to abolish. You get real life substitutions using blank LCD. Why get rid of that? If it is because teams get away with six or seven man rotations then get rid of game shape training. But removing the one single aspect that simulates real basketball feels like a mistake. Change the training instead. It shouldn't take two years of real time to make a player viable for upper league use. That's nuts. No wonder user base has dropped. I am apparently one of the stupid people to invest this kind of time.

Fix the economy. Why would you feel an economy that has 18 yo players sell for more than they will ever fetch on the market with hundreds of real days training behind them? Here's a tip, add more talent to the drafts. Lower the cost of scouting points for the draft. The best 18 yo should cost a tenth of what he could become. Our economy is so back asswards in this game it's silly.

Fix the salaries. Seriously. I have player that I can't sell but need to because I demoted. I can't sell him for a thousand bucks. However he is on a national team so I can't fire him either. Should some sucker not come along and purchase him, he will either bankrupt me or I sell off assets. How does that inspire anyone to want to stay with the game?

Private league forums? Jeezuz seems like a simple add on for a league of actual paying customers but they would have to go through the in-navigable fed forums to create one.

Simple search features. Obviously way too complex for this site. A complaint since I started in season 11 but no address.

I could tell within two PL games that the lineup options were broken beyond fix. I have stated this in a few forums. Fixing the best feature on this game has not been a priority for me because I see zero benefit. I have yet to see a rational response to the reasoning behind this desire, I suppose I am not owed one. But I am a paying customer and have been so for actual years on end. I would be willing to pay more than the minimal amount you require for supporter benefits. Hell charge my visa again, but let's get a deep feeling for what is actually broken before half assign a fix on a community of zero ramifications peoples. The PL testing was a bad idea for a bad fix. My two cents.

I understand you want to keep this thread topic specific, but my interpretation is this is topic specific. Punish me as you will, but keep in mind I always pay my bill.

Three year supporter,
Yuck

I have to agree. The blank lineup seems like an odd thing to target. If you want people to train then make it worth it to invest and train younger players. Just make higher quality rookies, there is no reason a drafted player be unplayable in league games above D5. Why shouldn't players come out with prolific or sensational level skills? Why would a D2 team invest in an 18 year old if it's going to take 5 seasons to become just a rotation player? 15 months of real life time before you can use a player you invested a crap ton of money on as well as the cost of a trainer? The cost effectiveness of it is completely skewed, so let's just get rid of blank lineups and put a band aid on 5 inch knife wound! Make scouting, training and development a cost effective option with a return on investment to come much faster than it currently does. Or pretty soon the quality of player available to all is going to drop as more and more people realize the inefficiencies financially in actually training players. How fun will the game remain to those of us left when we reach the point of skilled players becoming scarce?

Former 3 year supporter who let his subscription lapse because the game is increasingly becoming less and less enjoyable.

Last edited by Hoosier at 10/15/2014 2:28:35 AM

Let's say you spend 20k per week for two seasons on the draft and from that you get lucky and pull 2 decent prospects. You have dropped over 400k in scouting costs alone. Now you spend 200k on a level 5 trainer with a16k salary, you keep him for 4 seasons at an average salary of 27k per week. That's 1.5 million in trainer salary. Now you fire him, drop another 200k on a 2nd level 5 trainer with a cheaper salary for 3 more seasons at an average of 23k per season, that's another 950k. You are at 3.2 million for an investment that won't help you till season 5 or 6. And that goes up if you don't want to take the time to scout and just purchase two good trainees for 400 or 500k a piece off the TL. Now you are over 4 million invested, for just two players. You can't win many games with just two players.

Or you can not have a trainer, tank for two seasons and have a ridiculous amount of money to put together a rebuilt roster of 30 year olds that you compete for a title and promotion right away. This is where all the fun is, winning and competing with the best teams. This plan helps you rebuild much much faster. You never need to train and waste 7 seasons doing so.

And this is why no one at the higher levels train, the system doesn't make it financially viable to do so! Taking away blank lineups does nothing to change this. Make rookies better with a higher skill level to start and that reach their potential in 3 or 4 seasons instead of 7 or 8.

Last edited by Hoosier at 10/15/2014 3:05:12 AM

Maybe this could be in another thread or made a new one?

Referring to this (259887.66)

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. I have refrained from deleting them because I do want to hear what our users have to say, but my patience has reached a limit and I will not tolerate such posts any more. This is a direct warning.

Would have loved to talk about it too, but it would sidetrack the purpose of this thread.

I would have to agree that this discussion would be best served in another thread. Fortunately, there is another thread that has recently been started that is in the Suggestions forum - the thread itself is: (263578.1)

Let's please try to keep this thread right here on the topic of testing the changes or questions about the specifics (as BB-Marin's last post was unclear about whether three or four is the number).

@Everyone: Let me make this clear; 3 starters set -> no change. 2 starters set -> new code kicks in (clears the whole depth chart and sets it's own).

And yes, we will not implement this code in normal games this season, so the LCD will function as it did so far. We might implement it later on in the season or next season, depending on test results.

@Yuck: I have already explained why we're doing this in my previous posts, please read them. As for the other comments you made about economy and training, they are not what this thread is intended for. As much as I like hearing and value your opinions, I cannot start a discussion about them here since the thread is intended for one thing only: testing this new code. Everything else doesn't belong. Start a new thread and we'll discuss it there. Oh, and I see you sold your NT player. Congrats.

@Hoosier: The same thing applies, please stay on topic. Let's just continue this in (263578.1) or a new one, if you don't mind.