BuzzerBeater Forums

Sorry, but I don't see any sarcarm in my message, maybe the same frustration.

Okay, so we both are clearly frustrated. What's your suggestion to solve this problem?

Seems like everyone's concerns on this thread have been addressed with this rule change.

Obviously not those people who think the rule is targeting the wrong people and that tankers can still tank as easily as before.

everyone's concerns on this thread have been addressed with this rule change.

Nah not really. The fundamental flaws are still there.

The News post is a strong indication they understand now that something is not quite right or didn't go as expected, possibly both with the overall plan AND the implementation. This is good, but it's also the bare minimum. It still leaves questions unanswered (mainly how do they plan to hit the same way D1 and D2 teams with bots in their leagues).

We could have spared a lot of bad blood and time posting if they had an open discussion with the userbase about this beforehand. Something like: "we are introducing anti-tanking measures next season and we would like your opinion on it". Most of the stuff would have come out right away.

Last edited by Lemonshine at 1/5/2017 9:02:46 AM

I think the reaction we see now, is the best we could have asked for realistically. I am somewhat satisfied with it.

Just a general suggestion from my good friend Sir Richard Branson: Complexity is your enemy. Any fool can make something complicated. It is hard to make something simple.

I'd get rid of many of those regulations if possible.

Not true. There is nothing wrong to get some feedback before making a decision. After the discussion stage you make the decision you want, it might still be a bad decision, but at least you can say you weighed all (or most) of the pros and cons.

The worst part of talking to Foto and Marin is that they think they are right no matter what kind of evidence or logical reasoning you use and they don't need to explain anything. When you move away from arguing on the general purpose of a change (in this case whether we need anti-tanking or not) and you start simply pointing out inconsistencies in their approach it usually ends very very badly, because they just reject all criticism. Ideally I'd like them to be sure of what they are doing and to be able to explain their choices in a logical way.

I'd have no issue if the problems highlighted in various threads were tackled and they explained why they decided to go ahead with this solution anyway. The fact that we received no answers simply tells me they didn't have any or, in other words, they didn't consider all the angles, because like everyone else they are human and while there's many of us users playing at all levels and using all sorts of approaches to the game, there's only a handful of them and they often don't have first-hand experience on some topics.

If someone says to me that a solution was superior to another, I want him to be able to explain me why. Otherwise I think I have every right to point out what I think the flaws are and ask for improvements. It's their right to make the changes, but I think we have every right to question them especially if they come out of the blue and are completely different from what people discussed in the past. This kind of changes should be bulletproof, obvious.

Last edited by Lemonshine at 1/5/2017 12:13:42 PM