BuzzerBeater Forums

...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...

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.

I'm sorry but this makes no sense. First of all selectively choosing the players with the highest salary is useless in this context because the problem, or supposed problem, is with the Private League, so the analysis should be bases obviously on those players who played in the Private League for a significant enough amount of minutes that their game shape should have, with a high probability, changed if those minutes were taken into account instead of disregarding them, which is what should happen. Secondly, I find it curious that the problem solving process involves first definitely determining there was not a problem and then failing to take into account the elements that could have caused the problem. Thirdly, the underlined part is not what I stated. What I stated is that adding 7 or 9 minutes to the total minutes of that week still keeps those players inside the optimal range, so your conclusion that their game shape is normal, and thus there is no problem, is worthless.

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.

Not including the first couple of weeks of the season, which is not the current scenario, I would have to strongly disagree on this as well. However, if, once again, you can produce evidence of this happening (which should not be too difficult if it happens to many players each and every week), then I will admit that I am wrong, disregarding the fact that I have not seen this happen once on my team in my entire time on BB.

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:

#102th time: I'm not complaining about the bug, just about your ticket managing.

04/30/2010 15.22.14 - We posted the "bug"

4 hrs later you talk to Charles (and not to me)
8 hrs later I say "is there anybody out there?"
12 hrs later You don't talk to me (e.g. "nothing to do for saturday match, Radiobasket") but you go in 3d just to edit your previous post
25 hrs later I try to talk to you for the 2nd time. No reply.
40 hrs later 3rd my S.O.S. Message. No reply.
60 hrs later Your first funny reply to me. I go to buy champagne. That was a message you could have post me 1 second after too.

In this while I lost two matches. Was that a good way to manage it? If you state that it is a good way, i'd accept that state.

Even if (#103) I'm complaining just about inefficiency I think that 99% of BB players would agree (and they do in national bb) with SpicyMcHaggis™ objections. I think it is something like Rest of the world Vs. your analysis.

Despite this (#104) I would have accepted the thing (bug, mistake, normal GS collapse, call it like you want) if you had been more humble or kind. Now I'm sure of two things:
- I would hire you as a lawyer if you were a lawyer
- I would not hire you as my company customer care chief

Which rope?
The first rope I know is: Be close to poor players that, in panic, ask BB some help.
The other rope I know is: I like this Buzzerbeater even if it's not perfect.
The third rope I know is: Don't try to persuade us Buzzerbeater is perfect.
Are they your ropes too?

You're welcome!

The bad news from this thread is that BB keeps no records of training minutes, nor of past game shapes.
This way it is much harder to check if something goes wrong.

Maybe you can do something about this?

If you want to yell at someone for the level of communication, yell at me - my job is to communicate, while Marin's is to fix problems.

If your job is communicate you should have rescued poor Marin (no sarcasm) 3-4 days ago.
My definitive message is: Nothing more to yell at, I said all, everything is ok and flowers are blooming.

And the endless debate starts. You have your position, I have mine, we only have arguements that are based on experience, not real proof (as Newton07 did point out, we don't have a record of past GS's), meaning, we both can supply endless amounts of players and claim what their GS was. I don't plan on doing anything like that.

It's my position now on that I have proven beyond a doubt that the GS of those two teams is possible. To me that is enough. That, together with the statement that there was no bug, leads me to think that the matter is resolved. I've made my point. Of course, you may not agree, but that's your right. I do not plan on dragging this debate endlessly because we disagree on a very basic level. I will leave it at this and I will respond to all your future inquiries with no hesitation, as you have pointed out some very good arguements, but I believe we must stop somewhere.

@Radiobasket
I will admit that this was not my usual way of replying to a bug report, but I already explained why that was. Try not to take that personally, my intention was to help right from the start as you can probably agree, looking back at the posts made. Editing past posts is never a good idea and I try to avoid it, but in this case I felt I had to. That may have been my biggest mistake. There was never any personal disrespect toward you, SpicyMcHaggis, Yuzzu or anyone else. Just like you, i'm trying to make make my case as best as I can, because I do feel we need to elaborate on our actions. It is a battle of opinions which can (and probably will) never end. And that's why I decided not to prolong it any more. I hope you understand.

If your job is communicate you should have rescued poor Marin (no sarcasm) 3-4 days ago.

Fair enough, that is my fault.

And the endless debate starts. You have your position, I have mine, we only have arguements that are based on experience, not real proof (as Newton07 did point out, we don't have a record of past GS's), meaning, we both can supply endless amounts of players and claim what their GS was. I don't plan on doing anything like that.

It's my position now on that I have proven beyond a doubt that the GS of those two teams is possible. To me that is enough. That, together with the statement that there was no bug, leads me to think that the matter is resolved. I've made my point. Of course, you may not agree, but that's your right. I do not plan on dragging this debate endlessly because we disagree on a very basic level. I will leave it at this and I will respond to all your future inquiries with no hesitation, as you have pointed out some very good arguements, but I believe we must stop somewhere.

All right, I can agree to leave the matter at that, since a whole week has passed and obviously our experiences are diametrically opposite, so we will never come to a conclusion.
However, what might be of use is that the both of us pay particular attention to those situations which may lead to a conclusion that one of us is right (not for the sake of being right, because I honestly don't care, but in order to avoid ignoring bugs in the future or mistaking something unlikely but possible for a bug). What I mean is that so far, due to my experience, I have come to the conclusion that game shape can fluctuate between respectable and proficient as long as the minutes involved are constantly neither extremely high or extremely low, except for perhaps the first two updates, in which game shape may drop to average, but that is due to the peculiar starting point.
However, in order for the game shape to go down to average, or worse mediocre, the player has to play (and perhaps not for one week if his GS was higher than respectable) a number of minutes that either far exceed or are far less than the optimum, which we can agree is between 48 and 75 (and by far I mean in the high 90s or low 30s at least).
I will try and be more careful and notice the minutes played by the players I see with average or mediocre game shape, and if I see strong evidence that I am wrong, then I will definitely have learned something. It would be great if you could do the same, since it's obvious that there would be a problem if a BB has such a fundamentally incorrect idea of game shape.