BuzzerBeater Forums

They already have an online version called Football Manager Live..

That doesn't answer my question.

So basically what you're saying is that online games should be less deep?

I am saying that you cannot Save and Exit out of BB and come back to it when you feel like it, for example.

Yeah, but Football Manager is also online, is what you seem to be forgetting.

Without question, Potential, age and value are pretty much all I search for, being able to just say "all-time great" would be better...though it may cause some bargains to not be such bargains. This one seems easy to do too.

have to, but i want to be succesful + i don't want to play lotto ;)

So i get forced to use the changes, too ...

Have you ever played Football Manager? It's 100x more complex than BuzzerBeater and is one of the best selling, most successful and popular sports management games in history. That's because the game is so deep.

Do you make a difference between an online game that flows in real time, and a single-player computer game? Apparently not.

Shall we see how quickly Football Manager Live surpasses the userbase of BB... I know difficult to compare but the point that I have read in the discussion between you and Zazen is that he is asking for a bit more tactical diversity and you are all saying it has enough.

The fact is that the rule changes that helped the pure tacticians of the BB world were not tactical changes. Eliminating daytrading and adding taxes has helped tacticians as opposed to players like me who just try to own better players and hope the game engine favours me. Now I have to think about the tactical element of the game more. If it is more indepth I will surely struggle BUT the additional that is being suggested would still need to be juggled correctly to balance training minutes.

I would argue its easier to get players close to 48mins with the current system.. with new orders each quarter achieving the magic 48mins for each player is surely likely to become more difficult and therefore not give managers like this an advantage?

I have read in the discussion between you and Zazen is that he is asking for a bit more tactical diversity and you are all saying it has enough.

He is asking, in particular, for being able to set lineup for each individual quarter. I don't see much tactical depth in that, I see a lot of unnecessary micromanagement.

This game is not just about setting the lineup for games. As a matter of fact, one can argue that it's not even mostly about setting the lineup. Owning a better players is a critical component of the game, since it is a manager game and not arcade basketball.

You can also argue that we're get even better tactical side by allowing people to manage their in-game decision live while the game is in progress, but there is a reason why this isn't implemented and likely won't ever be.

Maybe would be better that we have salary caps for each league level.
And second thing,for example if someone has earnings more than 5 millions at season then buzzerbeater federation can take as tax all money over this sum.
Or maybe to put in transfers max price for player, so all money offered over it will be taken by buzzerbeater federation. But seems it is not so good idea.

And money what we are getting from cup matches are too small, we have no interest to play that competition, specially if we know that can't win.
It's better to play friendlies and train young players.

I have read in the discussion between you and Zazen is that he is asking for a bit more tactical diversity and you are all saying it has enough.

He is asking, in particular, for being able to set lineup for each individual quarter. I don't see much tactical depth in that, I see a lot of unnecessary micromanagement.

This game is not just about setting the lineup for games. As a matter of fact, one can argue that it's not even mostly about setting the lineup. Owning a better players is a critical component of the game, since it is a manager game and not arcade basketball.

You can also argue that we're get even better tactical side by allowing people to manage their in-game decision live while the game is in progress, but there is a reason why this isn't implemented and likely won't ever be.

Not just the lineup, tactics as well. Coaching is a crucial factor in successfully managing a basketball team. You can have the best players in the world, but without proper coaching, you're not going to get very far. There should be equally as much of a coaching element in BuzzerBeater as there is the trading aspect.

We should be able to set each player's tendencies in games as well, such as defensive pressure (Normal, Tight, Loose), crashing boards (Low, Medium, High), etc.

There should be more offensive and defensive options, like Box and 1, Full-court/Half-court Trap, Triangle, etc.

Setting the percentage of each player's touches and isolation plays. Which players should pick and roll. I would even add more skills for each player, like Athleticism, Footwork, Steals.

Coaching is a crucial factor in successfully managing a basketball team. You can have the best players in the world, but without proper coaching, you're not going to get very far.

You are not the team's coach. You're the team's manager, which means someone else is down there by the bench who might be taking some instruction from you but ultimately makes his own decisions. I must say I am pleasantly surprised by how well the AI coaching works in this game.

We should be able to set each player's tendencies in games as well, such as defensive pressure (Normal, Tight, Loose), crashing boards (Low, Medium, High), etc.

Actually that's exactly what you shouldn't do. I've played a game like that before, and I cannot stress enough how annoying setting the line-ups is. As a matter of fact, I quit when I figured out I can't be bothered to spend time setting 5 different parameters for each of my 12 players before every game.

Plus, there are other things to consider here: first, players already adjust their behavior according to game situations: foul trouble, for example. I don't think it would be too realistic or indeed useful for gameplay to treat your players as pawns who do your bidding each and every time.

There should be more offensive and defensive options, like Box and 1, Full-court/Half-court Trap, Triangle, etc.

Sure, go ahead and code them My understanding is that offensive and defensive tactics right now mostly affect team ratings and shot selection (except for FCP, which gives you an extra chance for an easy basket). The tactics you suggest are expected to influence the individual behavior of players, which likely requires a new game engine. I don't think this is happening any time soon.

Setting the percentage of each player's touches and isolation plays. Which players should pick and roll. I would even add more skills for each player, like Athleticism, Footwork, Steals.

Most of these terms have no meaning in the current game engine. As for new skills, since there is a finite number of skills per player in the game, you can't describe everything, so something is bound to be left out. The current skill system already does a good job of describing a player's abilities, I don't think expansion is necessary. Especially having in mind that it's already somewhat difficult to compare the strength of the different skill sets (read: a bit too many skills per player).

In conclusion, one of the major assets of online games is having a wide user base; moreover, most of the said user base should have a good grasp of the game, otherwise we might as well play with bots. My experience tells me there are 2 major factors helping to achieve this: the game shouldn't be too simple, because game play is dull; and it shouldn't be too complex, because game play is annoying.

I am not sure where BB fits in my little scale, and while changes and improvements will always be possible, what you suggest is not necessarily a step in the right direction.

You are not the team's coach. You're the team's manager, which means someone else is down there by the bench who might be taking some instruction from you but ultimately makes his own decisions. I must say I am pleasantly surprised by how well the AI coaching works in this game.

Then why are we setting lineups and tactics? Those are coach duties. As far as I'm concerned, we're the general manager and coach. If not, then remove the ability to set tactics and lineups and introduce the hiring of coaches with various skillsets, much like players. I doubt many people would want that.

Actually that's exactly what you shouldn't do. I've played a game like that before, and I cannot stress enough how annoying setting the line-ups is. As a matter of fact, I quit when I figured out I can't be bothered to spend time setting 5 different parameters for each of my 12 players before every game.

So you like spending time buying and selling players, but don't enjoy learning how to properly utilize them? Why don't we just make this a daytrading game then? Even in Pokemon, if you catch a powerful Pokemon, you still have direct them in combat.

Plus, there are other things to consider here: first, players already adjust their behavior according to game situations: foul trouble, for example. I don't think it would be too realistic or indeed useful for gameplay to treat your players as pawns who do your bidding each and every time.

No, you would give them basic guidelines on how to perform during games, just like coaches assign specific roles to each of their players on the team IRL. Players would still think on their own, but more tendency variables could be tweaked.

Most of these terms have no meaning in the current game engine. As for new skills, since there is a finite number of skills per player in the game, you can't describe everything, so something is bound to be left out. The current skill system already does a good job of describing a player's abilities, I don't think expansion is necessary. Especially having in mind that it's already somewhat difficult to compare the strength of the different skill sets (read: a bit too many skills per player).

Difficult? I don't find it difficult at all. In fact, I find it quite effortless to assess a player's strength and/or compare them with others.

My experience tells me there are 2 major factors helping to achieve this: the game shouldn't be too simple, because game play is dull; and it shouldn't be too complex, because game play is annoying.

I think temporary "annoyance" is a small price to pay for depth in the long run. I think everyone gets a little annoyed when they're forced to use their brains, but that's ultimately what keeps players interested - the challenge.

Then why are we setting lineups and tactics? Those are coach duties. As far as I'm concerned, we're the general manager and coach. If not, then remove the ability to set tactics and lineups and introduce the hiring of coaches with various skillsets, much like players. I doubt many people would want that.

You're giving instructions to the coach because, quite obviously, you're his boss. If you give him particularly poor instructions, the coach actually adjusts the tactics somewhat during the game according to the opposition's strength.

So you like spending time buying and selling players, but enjoy learning how to properly utilize them? Why don't we just make this a daytrading game then?

I like spending time on building up my roster, which includes setting a training regime, deciding when to sell and what to buy, and choosing the lineup for each game.

I don't like spending time on micro-managing every single game or each individual player because, quite frankly, this shouldn't be necessary. I understand you'd like to twist this argument towards me being an evil (day)trader, but that's not going to fly.

Difficult? I don't find it difficult at all. In fact, I find it quite effortless to assess a player's strength and/or compare them with others.

So can you absolutely effortlessly say which one is better (all other skills being equal), a SF with DR 9, HN 9, js 10 and is 10, or a SF with DR 10, HN 10, JS 9 and IS 9? How about one with DR 10, HN 9, JS 9, and IS 10? I am sure you can quite 'effortlessly' say they're about the same, except that's not really useful.

I think temporary "annoyance" is a small price to pay for depth in the long run. I think everyone gets a little annoyed when they're forced to use their brains, but that's ultimately what keeps players interested - the challenge.

Except the annoyance is not temporary, and there is necessarily challenging in a game with generally unnecessary depth.

Since I've gone through all of my arguments at least twice and with relative lucidity, I plan to stop spamming this thread.

Maybe would be better that we have salary caps for each league level.

i think this would be ugly with training, because they could raise salaries pretty fast above the cap.

And second thing,for example if someone has earnings more than 5 millions at season then buzzerbeater federation can take as tax all money over this sum.

if they earn it, then they earn it ;)

Why ppunishmendt some one for beeing good.

Or maybe to put in transfers max price for player, so all money offered over it will be taken by buzzerbeater federation. But seems it is not so good idea.

i agrree to you ;)

And money what we are getting from cup matches are too small, we have no interest to play that competition, specially if we know that can't win.

agree, 25k Bucks ain't worth to talk about, today cup is good to play tie and maybe to give extra training in the ASD-Week