BuzzerBeater Forums

It's ok, Radiobasket, we got it. Please wait, please be patient. :)

Actually, we really are looking into it. Regards.

Take it slowly, Marin. 0/2 this week and season is over. I'm proud of you all.

If you are not able to fix this bug before friday I suggest you to cancel all PL games this friday.
Otherwise supporters will be able to get extra training minutes and train two players more than non supporters... and that's definitely something nobody wants, right?

There is no definite proof that the minutes have been taken into account for training. Also, but still, we are checking the issue.

We checked the code thoroughy and the conclusion is that it was only a display error, so no minutes were ever included in training. You can check this by yourself if you want by giving some player PL minutes in a training position. Also, the display errors were fixed. Regards.

We checked the code thoroughy and the conclusion is that it was only a display error, so no minutes were ever included in training. You can check this by yourself if you want by giving some player PL minutes in a training position. Also, the display errors were fixed. Regards.

So how is the collapse in game shape justified?

Probably a display error :P So "Average" really means "Proficient". lol just kidding :D

Probably a display error :P So "Average" really means "Proficient". lol just kidding :D

LOL, ok, so my two lost matches mean won. And my lost first place means "World Champion". :D

Last edited by Radiobasket at 5/6/2010 6:14:33 AM

Can you elaborate why you think this is a bug? I'm trying to help, but I need data, not just flames. Something like this (here are your highest paid players' minutes and game shape without the PL minutes):

Ben-Yossef - 67 minutes - strong game shape (nothing wrong here)
Schlechtbach - 65 minutes - respectable game shape (this one *could* be better, but these things happen, you're not guaranteed strong game shape with good minutes)
Gajáry - 57 - strong game shape (again, nothing wrong)
Mizrachi - 59 - strong game shape (same as above)
Espada - 70 - respectable game shape (again, *could* be better, but I don't know what was this players starting GS, as he played 88 minutes two weeks before)
Chicharro - 48 minutes - strong game shape (nothing wrong)

@Radiobasket; I checked the weekly minutes of your players with highest salaries too:

Mühlestein - 71 minutes - proficient game shape (that's ok, right?)
Knobeler - 80 minutes - average game shape (80 minutes definitely lowers your GS)
Lagana - 79 minutes - mediocre game shape (same as above)
Avagliano - 75 minutes - average game shape (can't expect 75 minutes to raise the GS, can you?)
Bartolomei - 62 minutes - respectable game shape (this one would be suspicious if he hadn't played 84 minutes the week before)
Abraão - 69 minutes - strong (again, nothing wrong)

A widely known rule is that in order to preserve his GS, a player needs to play between 48 and 75 minutes (even less if you don't have a doctor with a massage speciality). Looking at all your players, I see only one player with GS respectable (Schlechtbach) which could maybe have better GS, but you must remember that there is a random factor in the calculation of GS. Others have the expected levels of GS considering their minutes. I truly hope people will look at this thread and judge for themselves. There was only a display error (which was promptly fixed), so there is no need for sarcasm (which is extremely rude).

So how is the collapse in game shape justified?

@SpicyMcHaggis™: There is no definite proof that PL minutes were counted, and looking at the code, we determined that it they definitely were not. So, the collapse is a direct consequence of the minutes the players played that week + the minutes from week(s) before + an amount of random.

1.
My sarcasm was about your (not you Marin, you all BB) lack of communication. If you'd posted your analysis before I wouldn't have something to reproach you.

2.

looking at the code, we determined that it they definitely were not.

This is the ONLY answer that counts. You say you checked it. It's all right. Same as above, couldn't you do it before? I'm repeating for the 100th time: my sarcasm was about that.

3.
You edited a post wroten by you in which you said "I fixed the PL visualization, but the issue about the training remains". You deleted the last part of the sentence (but the issue about...). EVERYONE in my place would have considered it strange. In this case too, no explanations about this.

4.
When my PL finished (10.30 CET, last friday) I immediately checked the minutes played of my players, and 6 of them were over 100 minutes. Then the update deleted all the table. My italian friends told me: "Your mistake was to not making a printscreen". This would have been a proof, but i trusted (and trust) in you.

5.
In this week the steps were: a) Bug in match-type view - b) Our players minutes table said "120 minutes, 119 minutes", ecc. c) Collapse in our game shape (oh, yes, "could be better", "could be better", "could be better", "could be better") - d) No answers to our requests FOR DAYS - e) You edit your post. What more to be suspicious?

6.
For me the question is over. For the 101th time: I'm a supporter and I don't have the right to have good GS, but I think I have the right to have quick answer (even "Sorry, we are working about it. I don't know if we will do until your league matches"). I'm surprised that this thing seems so hard to understand.