BuzzerBeater Forums

* Trying to balance the dominance of Look Inside 10/10 (while we don't know yet if increasing shot blocking is the answer, trying to fix the problem of one tactic being completely dominant is the right thing to do)

* Trying to reduce the impact of last minute "rental players" 10/10 (helps return the game closer to a basketball sim and a financial sim)

* Listing transfer players for 3/4/5/6/7 days 7/10 (a simple yet handy feature)

* Search the transfer list using 8 skills 10/10 (FINALLY!!!!!) :)

* Bookmark and page view counters 5/10 (another simple and handy feature but probably the least impact of all the changes)

2 "hopefully fixes if not at least help" to major game issues users have been wanting for a number of seasons and some very useful additions to manager functionality.

I think these changes are collectively amongst the best season announcements we've had in buzzerbeater in a very long time.

Hi,

Personally I'm loving the site and the new changes are welcome as always. I think BB's have a good vision for what this game is and what isn't, or shouldn't become.

I'm pretty worried about the state of the community, which is relatively large I admit but probably suffering from a lack of new managers who want to stay.

I'd say the top priority is, hands down, rebuilding the design of the site. I'm personally fine with it but it's not helping with the community not growing.

I think HTML5 is the answer, and it's where development should be invested, having an HTML5 version of the game viewer would do wonders for the game's attractiveness on tablets and mobile, and more generally the whole site.

I don't know if the foundation of the game allow for interacting with HTML5 or other modern languages, and if it wasn't, I'd still think it's imperative to re-write everything from the grounds up, or this game will forever be a pain to evolve with the most basic features (see example under) and unattractive to the mainstream visitor.

example: How is it that on the league leaders page, you can't sort by FG%, or by least amount of turnover per game, or use filters like only show players who average more than .X assists per minutes? I suspect it's because the data is difficult to use -> need to modernize the foundations ?

Hi.

First of all congratulation for the off-season process.

I just wanted to know if you thought to national team players when you announced that players who change team will get a drastic reduction of the game shape. In my opinion it's a good idea trying to introduce a sort of prize to the managers who use the same team for a long time without changing players, but if a manager sell a national team player, the national team will loose great opportunities to compete. It's a thing that the national team manager can't control!!

Hope i've been clear, sorry for my english :)

good job

+1. I like that idea!

I like the changes the BBs have made, with the exception of the extended transfer listing of players on a Supporter's team. This is a bit biased, but it gives the Supporters an advantage. Oh well :)

One thing that myself and others in the community have voiced that they would like the salary formula for JR to be tweaked to a more affordable level. I believe that if the JR formula was lowered to a generally affordable price, the current LI dominance would be weakened, and tactical diversity would increase.

All in all changes are in the right way, with a big question mark on the shotblocking change and GS drops for NT players.

Main reason is that we don't have clarification about how SB change is designed to work, therefore drawing conclusions, even after a considerable amount of games, might be tricky and actual feedback on the subject faulty.

The questions risen on the subject are:
* will it only contribute in more shots blocked in a game?
*if a team has good shotblocking bigs, the opposing bigs getting blocked early in the game, will resort to shooting mid range more or not?
* if a team has good shotblocking bigs, will this contribute to an inside focused offensive team taking more 3s than "normal"?

I believe, that if the answer is yes only in the first question, then BB would be better leaving SB as it was and tweaking instead the effectiveness of JR.

On the GS drop, i think NT players in leagues of countries in the same group as their native one , should somehow be immune to such drops when transfered, in order to prevent existent foul plays.


Last edited by maddoghellas at 6/20/2013 3:12:09 AM

Even if it would not be possible to train game shape training would still not really be worth the effort. So to remove Game Shape training is the least I expect to be implemented for coming season to promote training.

It is really boring to play in highest division and even if I manage to get my minutes for the training by sacrificing playing with best team it is not enough as punishment for skipping game shape training. You also need to be punished by having ½-1 level poorer game shape despite playing your starters fewer minutes a week.

I wouldn't really say it's an advantage, I mean, most players only really get bid on in the last few hours anyways. I see it being more for like low pot/cheap players that you may have to list a few times if you are really set on selling and not firing.

I like the changes the BBs have made, with the exception of the extended transfer listing of players on a Supporter's team. This is a bit biased, but it gives the Supporters an advantage. Oh well :)

No it doesn't it. It just saves the supporter time of re-listing a player that it tough to sell. More convenient, sure, but advantage, no.

Last edited by Coolbobj at 6/20/2013 11:23:22 AM

I think that lifting some restrictions on training would make it more interesting
Why can't SG be one position training for OD and PASS?
Why can't PF train ID or IS
how about single position training on anything for SF

Last edited by Headless T Gunner at 6/20/2013 12:04:23 PM