BuzzerBeater Forums

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.

Just for the record, I have gone through the first 20 or so pages of the transfer list, and looked at a bunch of teams (including yours and the entire italian Serie A), and I have not found 1 single player with average or mediocre form who would back up your statements regarding the general behaviour of game shape. Every single one of them has had huge problems with minutes in the previous week or weeks, either playing way above 90 minutes or below 30. In particular, the guys with mediocre form are all guys that either play at all or simply play the entire 48 minutes at least twice a week.

It's nice that we have gotten to an understanding at the end. I will keep an eye open for players that would support my side too, and will post them here if I find them.

I have a player (7412453) who has respectable shape for 3 weeks now, and he gets 55-70 mins every week... What's wrong with him ? :)

Looks like I have a game shape bug.
Players who played big minutes in B3 game, their game shape is bad as those minutes are counted in to calculation.

Minutes of last 4 weeks:
Hannes Heidemann (40797816) - 64 (B3 +47), 66, 52, 66.
Metod Šporar (40815423) - 54 (B3 +43), 57, 78, 49.
Jerzy Paszkiet (39727233) - 68 (B3 +48), 68, 56, 58.
Stanyslav Dyniak (39613281) - 64 (B3 +34), 60, 81, 69.

All game shapes are respectable (7) and DMI very low. Players who didnt play b3 have game shape 8 or 9.

Each player's minutes are not calculated at the moment training is run, instead they are added up in the player records when matches are calculated. That number is then displayed in the weekly minutes page. Had the B3 minutes really been taken into account, they would be visible in that page.