BuzzerBeater Forums

Assuming i'd be willing to go with your idea (i see 2 valid points, but unretiring one player always means it directly impacts the active managers. yet assuming the impact could be minimiaze. What selection criteria would you suggest to determine if a player should be unretired?

Managing the number of unretired players will also help in maintaining the value of trained players. In this case, I would also like to include the usual suggestion that I see in the forums which is to increase the training speed. Even something like 0.1% (0,1%) per season will do since one you stop training, you will be behind a manager who trains with a faster training speed.

Also, help me out here. 0.1% is trainingspeed * 0.001. i reckon you mean a 10% increase in speed ( trainingspeed *0.1). But am i to understand that you want to make up for the loss of value from unretiring players by increasing training speeds? what happens to the player who were trained 100% till the age of 28, after which it isn't considered to be beneficial to continue training? You would then be negatively impacting those players.

I'm pleased that some thought went into this part of the post. However, by increasing the training speed, you'd just shifting the negative impact from one group of players to another (and increasing training speed would be a larger negative impact, since i reckon that 60 to 70% of the players remain on a team each season. That means that you'd be substracting 60 to 70% of the value of those players... Not sure how managers would feel about that. i reckon the outcry will be much larger than before.

Player movement would be a fun concept, should there be some kind of chemistry build up in teams. However, player movement bring day trading with it, a concept to which the BB's have gone great length to stop it. So how would you like more player movement, with current rules in place (poor GS after a trade, ...)

Although recent rules (increased salary floor and boycott) are intended to promote competition, I think that it only forces some teams to be mediocre for a longer time.

i disagree with this statement. the increased floor and boycot will force teams to spend cash in other to avoid the boycot. Hence, we are talking about more competitiveness. if your direct opponent decides to spend cash in order to avoid a boycot (thus becoming better) then you'll have to follow that example lest you want to be the losing team getting the boycot. The one downside tho is that teams who got promoted because their opponents in the PO's had 2 or 3 injuries and thus couldn't field their best team, generally end up in a higher division with a way to weak roster. They'll be on the receiving end of the boycot ( something for which they don't have the funds to turn it around...) But i believe such teams to be a very small minority, and the trade off would be acceptable to me.

I think users prefer it if something is given to them (better draft, increased training) rather than if something is taken from them (cheap players, income lost due to boycott). Like if the boycott rules were there since the game was created, there won't be that much reaction in the forums compared to now.

The boycott rules were created as a result of teams continuing to tank, despite the salary floors. They just were tanking longer since they couldn't tank as much as before...

The boycott rule would get a resounding yes on the question if it was necessairy to tackle a current problem and can it achieve this without to many negative side effects (as mentioned, the only negative side effect is for the teams who get promoted but aren't the strongest ones in their conference).

I'll agree that it's always preferable to give more than to take away. However, the alternative would have been to give all the none tanking teams a little Christmas bonus of 10M, so that they could go out nd buy players to be more competitive, forcing the other teams to follow that trend (or to demote). however, such a rule would have to be implemented all the time and would increase the money in the game, futher decreasing the value of B- & C-tier players (and maybe increasing the A-tier players).

So again, i'm not sold on the idea. Formulate some criteria & maybe with some tweaks it might work. just remember, the harder the algorithm you use to select the players that are going to be unretired, the more processing power it will need from the servers. So it has to be relatively basic, yet meet your goals.

Now you are backing your suggestion up with your ideas. i'm still not convinced that the positive outweight the negative, but atleast there are some pro arguments to be made.

That 2 Billion is needed for the teams who go up a division so that they can buy a player to strengthen their squads to survive in the next league.

The current promotion bonus won't take you far, a monkey with only half a brain can see this. A quality player for DIV I costs you more then double the promotion bonus. Flooding the economy with Utopia money was the first mistake and we have to live with the aftermath now.

That 2 Billion is needed for the teams who go up a division so that they can buy a player to strengthen their squads to survive in the next league. It's also what the demoting teams lose in value (less merchandise/TV rights/garena income for them). So in the end, it balances eachother out. might not balance eachother out a 100%, but it's a balancing effort & one that the BB's consider to be a fair one!

Again, thanks for finally giving us some idea of what the BBs think. I've had replies from three members of staff that told us all nothing. I can finally point out the error in your thinking.

Yes, promoting teams and relegating teams balance each other, as one replaces the other. They do that now and they will do that in the future. However, the 2 billion number is the addition in promotion bonuses, and is not balanced by a loss elsewhere. As you've already said the balance is elsewhere. The increase in bonuses is new and massive and not balanced.

you going to tell me that without that promotion cash, you would have survived in II when you promoted? and in the EBBL when you promoted the first time? don't kid yourself.

I've never argued that teams shouldn't get promotion bonuses. I have already covered this in earlier posts and don't repeat everything I've said in every post so I can forgive the oversight on your part. I don't think the extra teams should promote but I have also pointed out that it would be stupid to let teams promote without a bonus. Though as far as I know this is already done with bot promotions.

I don't like adding any more cash to the game than you do. But that is a necessairy injection to guarantee that those who promote a division also have the chance to stay there!

Again, I've not argued for withholding bonuses. Quite the opposite. But it isnt a necessary injection because there's no need to add to promotions.

I think your missing an important part here. This is what AthrunZala thinks and not the BBs.

Did you read my post and his? This next quote is from Athrun Zala's post:

That 2 Billion is needed for the teams who go up a division so that they can buy a player to strengthen their squads to survive in the next league. It's also what the demoting teams lose in value (less merchandise/TV rights/garena income for them). So in the end, it balances eachother out. might not balance eachother out a 100%, but it's a balancing effort & one that the BB's consider to be a fair one!

When someone tells me the BBs consider something to be fair I trust that they have heard from a BB that that is their opinion, especially when he's a member of staff. If its not true that that is what the BBs think then you need to take that up with your fellow GM and not with me, and especially not in public when you know that some people will think you're right and like you will not have read the post properly.

People should really stop adding us GM"s together with what ever the BBs decide to do or think

Read the quote above.

We are users just like everyone else and have no insight into what the BBs plan and do and have our own thoughts about every part of the game.

Read the quote above.

We may be a part of the staff. But a very different part of the staff then the part that actually has something to do with development and thinking of new features.

I apologised to you a week or so ago when I misunderstood one of your posts. I hope you'll realise like I did that you've made an error.

Yes I may have not entirely got the whole point of your post.

You can't just admit you were completely wrong, as I showed to you in your previous post can you? Disappointing yet not unexpected. I've never reported a post before but I'm coming close to doing so now. Since you have now refused to admit your error, I consider what you have posted to be a lie about me, as my last post has shown. That needs to stop.

But the part where we get bunched with the BB staff and know what they do is starting to get tiresome. It's like comparing the PR management and the HR management of a corporation. They are part of the staff but do very different things.

Again I didn't do that, as my previous post has clearly shown. What is your problem here? Please stop these attacks on my character.

Manon & Gully,

We are highjacking this topic, yet again.

to clear things out: I have no idea what the BB think. All i can do is use my own brain, compare why BB's have taken decisions in the past & what the motive was behind it, to make educated guesses concerning their decisions. This by no means is proven, handed down or given what so ever to the staff!

If you read carefully, you'll read everywhere that i've written: that is what i'm thinking that the BB's would do. I'm not saying they are doing it!

If i have given you the impression that i'm a person of who has acces to more knowledge than you, then i'd like to appologize for that, since i'm not priviledged to know how the BB's make their decisions. all i do know, is that they've carefully thought them through and have taken them for a good reason.

All i have done, is looked at things from what i'd consider to be a BB perspective. Best example to demonstrate that can be found between forumpost (284023.6) & (284023.7), where i clearly state that IF the BBs were handing down tips concerning making suggestions, then i'm a user who's unaware of those guidelines!

GM's aren't all knowning, nor do they get to see information prior to the rest of the community.

Now to put this matter to rest:

Manon has a point.
Because the GM's bear the GM tag, you automatically assume that we have more knowledge than the other users. it's a wrong perception. I'm unsure where the claims originate from that the GM's know more than the normal users, but it's false. The only thing that sets a user apart from a GM, is that a GM has a couple of tools to ensure everything that isn't related to the code behind BB, runs smoothly. That price of power comes with a series of responsibilities and fear not, our actions do get reviewed!

Gully has a point too
Manon wrongfully assumed that Gully though i had knowledge of what the BB's do. The fault for that assumption is with me! apparently, i failed to stress enough that the points i made, where from what i would consider a BB would do. i could be right, but i could be horribly wrong! Manon wanted to clarify that what GM's & BB's might think, could be ( and are likely) to very different things! Manon referral that everyone seems to think we are in league with the BB's, is equally wrong. Gully clearly has felt as if he's being singled out from that post, somethign which i'm certain wasn't Manons intention. As for demanding an apology. the staff (Mods, LA's, GM's) often get singled out. We don't do apologies well. Hence, you've got one here:

I (as an individual) am sorry i might have given you the impression i have more knowledge than others. We ( as GM's) aren't robots. we are just humans. We make mistakes too. We (as GM's) are sorry if we don't always take the time to right our wrongs. We have many responsibilities to take care off, are often wrongfully accused of abusing our power or withholding information and have grown tired of it. The constant accusations do get to everyone, yet we are held to a higher standard. Occasionally, it can get frustrating. Hence, we (as a staff) sometimes fail to apologise when we should. We are also humans. we make errors. The difference is that we go to great lengths to avoid making any. So to Gully ( and any other managers who felt attacked) we (as GM's) apologize if our own behavior isn't always what you'd like it to be. We do our best, and one cannot ask for anything more than that

So, i've cleared things out. I've apologized for the errors made in this topic.

(part 2 in next forumpost)

TLDR:
*) GM's don't know more than the rest of the community.
*) GM's can get thing wrong. this topic is a prime example, where apparently i failed to clarify for everyone that whatever written by me, was me portraying a BB's perspective. Who knows, they might flip up coins to make decisions? (altho i somehow doubt that!)
*) due to some misunderstandings/misinterpreting the messages, you more occupied with blaming eachother, not to mention highjacking this topic!


Now that this has been sorted out, can we finally get back to the topic at hand? And that topic was:

Unretiring players

the conversation was ended where a request was made to provide the idea for a potential algorithm of selecting players who should be unretired, so that a BB might be able to take a look at it suggestion and give his thoughts on the matter.

That last part is something everyone can do! My only problem is that i'm not in favor of this suggestion, have provided arguments as to why i'm against in. As mentioned in my previous post:

If you have theorised over a potential algorithm, put it up here. If you have arguments (pro's or con's) post them aswell. The more an idea has carefully been considered, the more likely a good decision can be made. If one can device a good algorithm, which takes as many of the pro's and con's into account and results in a positive contribuation to the entire BB community, then i would endorse it. doesn't mean the BB's will implement it. But if it's a beneficial for the community, then i, as a manager, would be happy to lend you my support (and in general, it's my personal belief that the BB's design and adjust features to either benefit the game as a whole, or to tackle a necessairy problem with the game that is defeating the purposes for this game that were invisioned by the BB's)

Now that this is said, can we please stop highjacking this topic & try to see if anyone can come up with an algorithm (or other pro or contra arguements for this suggestion), so that the other managers of this community may point out it's potential flaws with the goal to improve the general idea, as one community!

Last edited by AthrunZala at 1/13/2017 3:19:59 PM

Now that this has been sorted out

No. It has not.