BuzzerBeater Forums

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.

Lagana - 79 minutes - mediocre game shape (same as above)

This is laughable.

Lagana played 79 minutes that week, 83 the week before, 62 the week before that, 68 minutes the week before that, and finally 72 the week before that.
I have been playing since Season 2, and there is simply no way that a player can drop to MEDIOCRE game shape with perfect minutes for three straight weeks and then two weeks with minutes that are SLIGHTLY above the optimum unless a)there was a bug or b)the game shape formula has changed.

Also,

Knobeler - 80 minutes - average game shape (80 minutes definitely lowers your GS)

: the bolded part in this statement is just a flat out lie. If you want I can keep track of the shape of all players before and after a training update in which they have 80 or above minutes, and I can prove to you that it is not 100% sure that 80 or more minutes lowers game shape. Again, I say this with absolute certainty since I've been playing since season 2, so I've been around for quite a few updates.

And while I'm at it,

Mühlestein - 71 minutes - proficient game shape (that's ok, right?)

: perhaps it would have been worth mentioning that he only played 9 minutes in the Private League game that was causing the problem, so his total for the week was 80 minutes, which, unlike you incorrectly stated, does NOT guarantee that game shape will drop.

And we can go on:

Abraão - 69 minutes - strong (again, nothing wrong)

...yes, definitely nothing wrong, even though you fail to mention that he only played 7 minutes in the incriminated PL match, which brings his total to a more than acceptable 76 minutes. So just like the previous player, this proves absolutely nothing.

And on we go...

Avagliano - 75 minutes - average game shape (can't expect 75 minutes to raise the GS, can you?)

: Yes, we could actually expect it since it happens week in and week out to many players. What we can't expect is that a player that plays 75 minutes one week, 77 the week before, 63 the week before that, and 68 the week before that finds himself with average game shape. Which of those two scenarios is more likely? I would have to say the first one, right? However, if you factor in the 39 minutes he played in that Private League match, his total for the week rises to 114 minutes, which would more than justify a collapse in game shape.

The starting lineup for Campania Rats's Private League match was the following:
Knobeler, Avagliano, Bartolomei, Claverini, Laganà. All those players played a minimum of 39 minutes. Their game shape is respectively average, average, respectable, respectable, and mediocre.
If you want to keep pretending that there is no problem, fine, you are free to do so. Just know that anyone who has even the slightest bit of experience in this game can see that either this is not the case or the user suffered by far the worst luck in game shape that I have ever seen in the 10+seasons I have been playing.
Maybe it would have been better to just admit there was a problem, admit that it was not solvable, and advise against playing PL games before or during the weekly update.

I feel this is a futile attempt in trying to explain the issue, but I feel I must try, even though you've already decided that there's a bug no matter what I say, and this will turn into an endless debate. Here goes:

@Radiobasket:

1. Obviously I need to start answering every bug report with "please, have patience". Seeing that you had already said that ("Ok, Radiobasket, we got it. Please wait, please be patient"), I smiled and thought this time I didn't have to. Also, I would have posted my analysis before if I thought I needed to. Only when we determined for certain that there was no training bug and you both dismissed my conclusion (!), I had to write such an elaborate analysis.

2. I couldn't have done it before because it wasn't checked before (these things take time). Try not to use sarcasm when reporting a bug, it definitely doesn't help.

3. So, my mistake was editing my post? I had to edit it because I, like you, jumped to a conclusion that there was definitely something wrong with the training without checking your minutes beforehand (as I trusted you wouldn't file a report if you weren't sure) or checking the code. Until I was sure that there is no bug in the training calculation code, I couldn't have had an unbacked statement out there. If you asked about this, I would have explained before.

4. A misunderstanding: I believe your players had +100 minutes displayed. That was the presentation error which was fixed. Also, another one was that the players didn't have "private" beside the minutes for the game in question. That too was fixed. Just to clarify, the code for displaying the minutes has absolutely nothing to do with the training calculation code, so a printscreen would have never been accepted as valid proof.

5. A) and b) already explained.
c)'Collapse in our game shape (oh, yes, "could be better", "could be better", "could be better", "could be better")' - have you even read what I wrote about what influences GS? Selectively taking things out of context isn't really making an arguement. Also, I said that two of the twelve players could have had better GS than they do, not four (as you presented it).
d)"No answers to our requests FOR DAYS" ? - let's look at our timetable:
30.4. : The report is filed and we reply to it the same day
1.5. : You're asking about the status of the issue
2.5. : I reply asking for more patience (with your own words)
3.5. : You reply with "Me and Yuzzu are waiting...". I don't think I have to reply to that.
4.5. : The sarcasm starts ("I'm proud of you all."). Where's the patience I asked for there? This was rude, you must admit. Therefore, no reply.
5.5. : I ignore the sarcasm and post the conclusion that there was no training bug ("We checked the code thoroughy and the conclusion is that it was only a display error, so no minutes were ever included in training").
6.5. : You dismiss my conclusion with "Your answer is quite unlikely, the way you managed the issue too." SpicyMcHaggis adds "So how is the collapse in game shape justified?", which still implies there was a bug. Yuzzu was more direct with "unbelievable! this is a Bug! OBVIOUS.. display error? tzè..". Again, you all have already decided that there must be a bug, regardless of what I said. And then, as a reply to that, I posted my analysis, which you have accepted (I may be wrong) and SpicyMcHaggis still does not (to be replied to in the next post).
I did not reply on the 3.5. and the 4.5., but I had good reasons not to (read above), and all that after I had asked for patience on the 2.5.. Therefore your statement that there were no answers for days simply doesn't stand.

6. I undestand that you wanted a quick answer, but there was none to be given. Checking the code had to be done properly and I'm afraid we can't do it in a rush, nor can we say when exactly it will be done. My plead for patience was not heard in this case, so if you state that we are slow, I'd accept that and state t