BuzzerBeater Forums

BB Global (English) > 3 games / week, 48 minutes training and shape gestion= bb cool but bad games too

3 games / week, 48 minutes training and shape gestion= bb cool but bad games too

Set priority
Show messages by
This Post:
00
113802.4 in reply to 113802.3
Date: 9/29/2009 3:50:06 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
00
For sur, with injuries and good player out, you must choose one match at week but with a good team, the problem is less important than a middle team with just 2 ou 3 stars.

Last edited by pascalou at 9/29/2009 3:52:05 PM

This Post:
00
113802.5 in reply to 113802.4
Date: 9/29/2009 4:54:58 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
77
ok with a drink and talking i understood ur plan, its balanced in 5 or 6 seasons(training still remains weird and not as ateam sport thought for me)

This Post:
11
113802.6 in reply to 113802.1
Date: 9/29/2009 6:32:01 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
225225
If teams have to throw games, this means they don't have as many players on their rosters as they should. This is poor management, not a game design issue.

Last edited by GM-kozlodoev at 9/29/2009 6:32:30 PM

"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."
This Post:
00
113802.7 in reply to 113802.6
Date: 9/29/2009 9:05:02 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
576576
This is poor management, not a game design issue.


I disagree, lots of well managed teams throw games. It is difficult to put out your best team without ruining game shape for even 2 games, let alone 3, unless you're assured of winning one of them by blowout or making sure to use "Strictly Follow Depth Chart".

The game is designed for teams to have depth and rotate players more then teams do in real life. Whether its a game design issue is up for the community to decide.

"Well, no ones gonna top that." - http://tinyurl.com/noigttt
From: robhoe
This Post:
00
113802.8 in reply to 113802.6
Date: 9/29/2009 9:15:39 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
108108
I don't think it is quite that simple.

I have enough players to cover the minutes...the problem I face is that I am a newly promoted Div III team with a developing roster. It is tough enough being competitive in the league but I just don't have the money to be (realistically competitive) in both the league and cup without risking game shape of my better players (which would again make me less competitive). Playing average teams would see me struggle to win, which will see my revenue drop, which will make it difficult to bring in new players to support my trainees.

I don't think it would be unreasonable to have the ideal minutes range widened...70-75 minutes would allow those teams who rely on their stars to at least suit them up for all three games and leave them at the bottom of the roster while using depth chart until 4th (in one game). Managers would still not be able to use their stars as starters for all three games but it would make the leagues and cup a little more competitive as if they really need to they can still call on their stars for a few extra minutes.

This Post:
00
113802.9 in reply to 113802.7
Date: 9/29/2009 9:25:14 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
225225
Whether its a game design issue is up for the community to decide.

Strange, I thought it was up to the game designers.

"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."
This Post:
00
113802.10 in reply to 113802.9
Date: 9/29/2009 9:37:08 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
576576
Thanks for dodging my point, but even that petty comment isn't all that true. I'd guess that the designers value their customers a little more then you.

"Well, no ones gonna top that." - http://tinyurl.com/noigttt
This Post:
00
113802.11 in reply to 113802.10
Date: 9/29/2009 9:49:00 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
225225
I disagree, lots of well managed teams throw games.

This statement is an oxymoron, I'm sorry. A team that doesn't throw games is managed better than a team that does, therefore this _is_ an issue of poor management.

The game is designed for teams to have depth and rotate players more then teams do in real life.

NBA teams carry 15 players. I'm pretty sure that a BB team with 15 decent players won't have to throw a game, ever. So no, this is not true.

Thanks for dodging my point, but even that petty comment isn't all that true. I'd guess that the designers value their customers a little more then you.
And lastly, while user feedback is definitely important, I am pretty sure that the desigers hae a vision of what their game should look like, and don't expect users to design it for them (most of the time). Even more so having in mind that a lot of those game design issues come for people who would rather have the game adapted to their playing style than vice versa.

Last edited by GM-kozlodoev at 9/29/2009 9:49:41 PM

"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."
This Post:
00
113802.12 in reply to 113802.11
Date: 9/29/2009 10:00:03 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
576576
A team that doesn't throw games is managed better than a team that does, therefore this _is_ an issue of poor management


What about a team that throws many road games to build up enthusiasm and game shape to ensure winning enough home games to avoid demoting? That team is better managed then a team that doesn't throw games it doesn't have much chance of winning and ends up demoting.

I'm pretty sure that a BB team with 15 decent players won't have to throw a game, ever. So no, this is not true.


A team with 15 decent players could easily lose more games then a team with 9 good players and 6 scrubs. A team that has 15 decent players on the road against a team with 9 good players might be wise to TIE and start the weaker of the 15 decent players and aim to win games they have a better chance in.

And lastly, while user feedback is definitely important, I am pretty sure that the desigers hae a vision of what their game should look like, and don't expect users to design it for the


And if enough people feel that an aspect of the game is designed poorly I'm certain the BB's will work hard to address the issue. That's really not the point of this thread though.

"Well, no ones gonna top that." - http://tinyurl.com/noigttt
This Post:
00
113802.13 in reply to 113802.11
Date: 9/29/2009 10:16:20 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
458458
For me it is a matter of priorities, and something that should be accepted as part of the game. If you want to have a roster of 15 players who can all perform at a decent level, you could have that with a team salary of around 500-600k. That is attainable for d.1 teams, I think. If you want to have a team that concentrates on the legaue, you need 8-10 good players. If you want a team just for going deep into the cup you could do that with 5-7 great players. The problem I see is when people start expecting to be able to win everything all the time without any obstacles put up against them.

Once I scored a basket that still makes me laugh.
This Post:
00
113802.14 in reply to 113802.12
Date: 9/29/2009 10:17:50 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
225225
That team is better managed then a team that doesn't throw games it doesn't have much chance of winning and ends up demoting.

And worse managed that a team that doesn't throw games and ends up not demoting. I think we're running in circles here.

A team with 15 decent players could easily lose more games then a team with 9 good players and 6 scrubs. A team that has 15 decent players on the road against a team with 9 good players might be wise to TIE and start the weaker of the 15 decent players and aim to win games they have a better chance in.

A team with 6 scrubs has either (a) given up on the cup, (b) given up on the league, or (c) running his 9 good players to the ground. So the total win tally can easily go the other way, either.

"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."
Advertisement