BuzzerBeater Forums

Making an app hard? I don't think so. In 3 days I managed to make a somewhat working, poor alternative to game viewer (works on windows, linux, android, possibly mac, ios but no devices to test). And I didn't even know or ask how things really work.

Then contact the BBs and start developing ;)

I believe that there is still something to be done with GE. In previous seasons lots had been done to stop LI. Lowering costs of SB and JR and the GDP. But still LI and LP are predominant and are used alternately to avoid being caught by GDP (speed); II and Push to make it not inside focused from time to time.

On the defensive side things are not better: M2m is used in 95% of games, 4% 3-2 and 2-3, and remaining 1% for the rest.
Box defences are either not understood by players (us) or useless. If it is lack information than the information should be given (after 28 seasons of not discovering the mystery we can be almost sure that it wont be discovered later on - especially as there are less players in the game now) or those tactics should be fixed in order to make it playable.

In order to fight with LI GDP was developed. GDP uses some of our skills - anticipation and luck even. It abandons other ways to fight with it - other tactics that with different players could be competitive at same salary level (it is a bit different when it comes to NT as there is no salary limit). Something can also be done on the defensive tactics side - now even when I am 100% sure someone will play inside tactic I prefer to play m2m - like most of the managers - defensive preparations are reduced to choosing GDP not including changing defensive tactics.

I know that GM-Manon will add his points - that he is successful with outside offence and 3-2 zone. I bet dollars against nuts that with his skills and knowledge - he would be much more successful with LI ;)...

The game should have different ways leading to the same goal and difficulty on each way should be similar. I know however that it is not easy though. Some further reduction of JR price or less reduction of Rebound for 3-2 tactic, less reduction of OD for 2-3 tactic...??? As a player I do not know the Engine, but developers could think of something to make zone/box defences more playable and outside tactics more competitive.

Not to mention minutes distribution in no-emptyLinup/LCD-world. In close games minutes go often well over 40 even with decent subs - which will make player being able to play only once a week in the first line-up.

Yes agree with both your points.

if I had my time again I would have included "balancing the strength of each".

I also that the development of a sub pattern that will better share minutes would be really nice.

End of the day I voted "develop an app" and I still believe it to be the most important

Cheaping SB and JR was great move. CHEAP IT EVEN MORE and we will see end of LI domination. Simple as that. How big should the value be?

Developers should create their top roster for each tactic using f.ex.120 skills for each position and than calcute the same salary total so every tactic is salary even. Than i bet 20 supporters packages that there will be so much fun in the game with no tactic absolutely dominating..

people offer what they think is the max for them.

This is a market distorsion. There are a) people not bidding as they are subject to a last minute sniping when they can't be online; b) people overbidding in order to prevent a). All these nasty effects would be mitigated if you had an autobid.

if i am interested in a player and i know i am not here in last hours i offer before my max, also one/two days before ....

What you do may be rational, but it is also slightly irrelevant here. What the majority of users does is relevant. Non-bidding and over-bidding due to the impossibility of being online at the end of the auction are both bad, especially with dwindling numbers.

As part of a balancing exercise they should take the top 100 teams and reprice the skills based on the average of players who played at each position in competitive games. If PG and SG playing for top teams have have relatively low JR and high IS, JR should become cheaper and IS (for PG and SG) should become more expensive. We all know that IS doesn't cost salary on guards, while it should.

The salary formula for each position should be driven by the actual observed skills. This would automatically balance some of the inconsistencies created by the GE.

Training should also be rebalanced the same way: more people train one skill=slightly reduce the effectiveness. Fewer people train a skill=slightly increase the effectiveness.

We would need clarity on how much the changes would be each offseason and you'd expect the changes not to be too drastic so that people are able to modify their plans both for their rosters and their training, if needed.



Last edited by Lemonshine at 10/28/2014 4:37:33 AM