BuzzerBeater Forums

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

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.

nothing else to say? :P

We are going to keep this thread respectful and businesslike - if we're going to effectively provide the correct information and our cooperation is needed, we ask that the gesture of cooperation is returned in kind.

We need to all pull on the same rope.

Thanks!

Laganà:
Laughable? I've been playing since season 3, and I think having too many minutes in two consecutive weeks definitely can lower your GS to mediocre. The GS cannot exactly be predicted, that's impossible because of a random factor, even wth perfect minutes every week. I'm not saying this as a developer, I'm saying it as a player from experience. I've had players drop or rise their GS unpredictably lots of times since I started playing, and this will never change (as it would make GS predictable). Slightly above optimum is exactly that, above optimum, and should be considered when looking at GS (it does lower your GS!). We shouldn't dismiss that as a factor and state that there must have been a bug or a change in GS formula.

Knobeler:
And now I'm lying? "I can prove to you that it is not 100% sure that 80 or more minutes lowers game shape" - I agree with that! I too have had players with more than 80 minutes and see them raise their GS, but that was not because of the minutes, but because of the random factor. The minutes alone definitely lower it (as I wrote in my analysis, and I did not mention the other factors like random and minutes from weeks before), but the random factor overrides the effect from them. This is why 80 is above optimum, because when looking at minutes alone, they lower the GS. I'm not sure if I'm being clear but I can try and explain more in depth. Take, for example, a hipothetical player that starts with proficient GS and plays constantly 80 (or even 75!) minutes every week, what would the graph of his GS look like? It would vary somewhat but it would depict a constant fall. This is all I meant when I said that 80 minutes lower your GS.

Mühlestein and Abraão:
I did not even look at the PL minutes because they were not taken into account when GS was calculated, as we have definitely determined. Stating that their GS is a result of playing only 7 or 9 minutes in the PL is as good an arguement as me stating that it was because of their minutes without the PL. Not really an arguement for either side. "...more than acceptable 76 minutes"? I don't think that players can continually play over 75 minutes a week and have only strong and proficient GS, and that is the foundation of our disagreement. We can have this debate forever since we don't agree on that.

Avagliano:
77 and 75 in consecutive weeks can cause GS to fall to average. I think this is a very possible turn of events. Also, I think that this happens to many players, week in and week out too, but can I expect it? No, GS has a random factor, so I can only expect a range of results.

Let's look at the names, GS, regular minutes played, PL minutes and finally the latter two combined (also, in brackets, the minutes for the week before that) for both teams' starters:
Campania Rats
Knobeler average 80 41 121 (59 the week before)
Avagliano average 75 39 114 (77 the week before)
Bartolomei respectable 62 41 103 (84 the week before)
Claverini respectable 80 39 119 (66 the week before)
Laganà mediocre 79 41 120 (83 the week before)

Saudade team
Ben-Yozzef strong 67 35 102 (63 the week before)
Schlechtbach respectable 65 41 106 (65 the week before)
Espada respectable 70 38 108 (64 the week before, but week before that 88)
Gajary strong 57 35 92 (59 the week before)
Mizrachi strong 59 36 95 (63 the week before)

It is immediatelly obvious that the Rats' players do have not only more minutes when we count PL, but also more minutes without PL than Saudade team's players. Therefore we can expect, in average, that their GS should be lower. Also, the Rats' players have had too many minutes (by my account, that's over 75) either that or the week before, some even both (Avagliano and Lagana). Saudade team's GS is much better, as the minutes would suggest. The only mystery is Schlechtbach, which has perfect minutes through several weeks but only respectable GS. This can, although very rare, be attributed to random. Continuing on the n

...continuation form the post above... Remember, I don't even know the players' starting GS, so I can't accuratelly analyse it's development over time. Actually, no one can do it accurately as it is partly random or luck. I don't think this is a case of very bad luck, only somewhat bad luck (in a case of Schlechtbach, definitely). I admit, at the beginning even I thought there could have been a bug in the GS calculation, but it was determined not to be the case, so no pretending there. We cannot admit to have a problem which doesn't exist, and the bottom line is, there is no bug as I've tried to explain in these enourmous posts (and for that I apologise to everyone that had to read them).

Laganà:
Laughable? I've been playing since season 3, and I think having too many minutes in two consecutive weeks definitely can lower your GS to mediocre. The GS cannot exactly be predicted, that's impossible because of a random factor, even wth perfect minutes every week. I'm not saying this as a developer, I'm saying it as a player from experience. I've had players drop or rise their GS unpredictably lots of times since I started playing, and this will never change (as it would make GS predictable). Slightly above optimum is exactly that, above optimum, and should be considered when looking at GS (it does lower your GS!). We shouldn't dismiss that as a factor and state that there must have been a bug or a change in GS formula.

I'm sorry, but from my experience, which is longer than yours, it is simply false that 3 straight weeks of perfect minutes and then two weeks of minutes between 75 and 80 can bring your game shape down to mediocre. Saying "too many minutes" obviously means nothing because it includes anything from 75 to 144, which result in vastly differentchanges in game shape.
However, if you are able to produce a single example of a player with mediocre game shape who has played no less than 48 minutes and no more than 80 minutes in the 5 previous weeks (other than this one of course), I will admit that I am wrong.

Knobeler:
And now I'm lying? "I can prove to you that it is not 100% sure that 80 or more minutes lowers game shape" - I agree with that! I too have had players with more than 80 minutes and see them raise their GS, but that was not because of the minutes, but because of the random factor. The minutes alone definitely lower it (as I wrote in my analysis, and I did not mention the other factors like random and minutes from weeks before), but the random factor overrides the effect from them. This is why 80 is above optimum, because when looking at minutes alone, they lower the GS. I'm not sure if I'm being clear but I can try and explain more in depth. Take, for example, a hipothetical player that starts with proficient GS and plays constantly 80 (or even 75!) minutes every week, what would the graph of his GS look like? It would vary somewhat but it would depict a constant fall. This is all I meant when I said that 80 minutes lower your GS.

Ok, now that you explained your point I can agree to what you are saying. However, the bolded part hardly applies in this scenario because Knobeler played absolutely perfect minutes for at elast three straight weeks before the 80 minutes he played in the week we are talking about.

Continued...