BuzzerBeater Forums

BB Global (English) > forum day - Game Shape.

forum day - Game Shape.

Set priority
Show messages by
This Post:
00
112396.21 in reply to 112396.20
Date: 9/23/2009 2:19:19 AM
AS Barroom Heroes
IV.3
Overall Posts Rated:
10251025
Second Team:
Lone Pine Productions
My second point was that there should be (gameplay-wise not logical realism-wise) a tradeoff so that there is at least a bit of a negative to go along with the positives of superior stamina. Almost all aspects of this game have a cost and benefit so I was thinking that this should as well.

ps- valid?? stamina


Lol..sorry..in italian lvl.9 is "valid"..I can't remember exactly what it is in the english version, and I was too lazy to change my profile and look it up. ;)

As for the negative tradeoff, I don't know, I guess that should be a judgement call by the BB's..if they want to have stamina be similar to other skills in that the higher the better, then there doesn't necessarily have to be one, if noy, then yeah, you could have it be that you have to play a guy with high stamina a bit more for him to stay in form (which would still be fine with me, since it's better to be forced to play a guy with high stamina more than it is to play him less, and it still adds depth to the game shape aspect of the game).

This Post:
00
112396.22 in reply to 112396.16
Date: 9/23/2009 6:36:05 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
587587
but I also think that it would add a shade of realism to the game form system, and it would in part fix what is now (IMO) a problem with stamina: unlike other skills, too much stamina right now is a big problem for some players because it doesn't allow you to put them in the starting lineup for both league games, and that doesn't make too much sense, especially if those players are your best ones.

Agreed in principle, and I'd like to see stamina play a role in game shape.

On the other hand, high stamina level shouldn't be a free ticket to play your superstar(s) night in night out with them performing at the highest level. So, finding the right balance may be tricky.

This Post:
00
112396.23 in reply to 112396.22
Date: 9/23/2009 8:08:47 AM
AS Barroom Heroes
IV.3
Overall Posts Rated:
10251025
Second Team:
Lone Pine Productions
but I also think that it would add a shade of realism to the game form system, and it would in part fix what is now (IMO) a problem with stamina: unlike other skills, too much stamina right now is a big problem for some players because it doesn't allow you to put them in the starting lineup for both league games, and that doesn't make too much sense, especially if those players are your best ones.

Agreed in principle, and I'd like to see stamina play a role in game shape.

On the other hand, high stamina level shouldn't be a free ticket to play your superstar(s) night in night out with them performing at the highest level. So, finding the right balance may be tricky.

That's why ideally the limit could be no more than 96 minutes (meaning two games out of three) for a player with maximum stamina possible. For a guy with very high stamina, that doesn't sound unreasonable.

This Post:
00
112396.24 in reply to 112396.21
Date: 9/23/2009 11:07:33 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
459459
At the moment the tradeoff for higher skills is higher salary. I don't think stamina plays a part in the salary calculation (I could be wrong) thus my thought that a different tradeoff might be needed. It is a pretty trivial point, but maybe a valid one...

Once I scored a basket that still makes me laugh.
This Post:
00
112396.27 in reply to 112396.25
Date: 9/23/2009 6:49:43 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
3535
about that graph: I believe it didn't consider the current GS level, only relative change, but I have the impression that the current level makes a difference for the statistical distribution, with an underlying trend towards respectable. not sure about this though.

if it's the study I remember, made by an italian user, it was made after the first week of the season, with all players starting with respectable gs.

This Post:
00
112396.28 in reply to 112396.26
Date: 9/23/2009 6:50:59 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
3535
It didn't -- for that matter of fact I am not sure whether it considered previous weeks, which definitely factors into the distribution. It's obviously not meant to be surgically precise, but as far as being a good guideline is concerned, I think it does an adequate job.

sure about that?
Edit: I know what is written in the rules, but, if you are referring to that, I interpret it differently.

Last edited by Newton07 at 9/23/2009 6:52:18 PM

This Post:
00
112396.31 in reply to 112396.29
Date: 9/24/2009 3:50:40 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
3535
From the rules
Players who do not play much each week tend to lose focus and their Game Shape will be sloppy. Players who play too much in a week will get tired and their Game Shape will also be low-quality. These changes are gradual, and will build up over a few weeks' time.

what I do understand from this, is that, if you start from low game shape, you need to give the right amount of minutes for a few weeks' time to get to high game shape. So, even with 60 minutes you can't expect a player to go from awful to strong game shape in a single week.
Similarly, if you start from proficient game shape and your player plays 120 minutes one week, his game shape won't drop to inept immediately.

But unlike you (and many others) I do think that the calculation of game shape only considers the minutes played in the last week.

Advertisement