BuzzerBeater Forums

1) I wrote that it seems that the TPE is using only those criterias.

And I am simply answering that it actually does not seem so. It is the input information that is explicitly given. The output i.e. the actual TPEs, however, suggest that the process is more refined than that.

There is no way to define what the current TPE is upon.
One can guess that there is a relation between the information they give about the player (single skill and potential) to the search they perform.
As written, I guess that they are performing it on a very small DB (AKA very recent time), and this is why you are very often get this "no information" TPE.

Anyhow, till now, I did not read a single explanation why a new TPE will be better than a TLH.
The claim that the TLH will be harder to implement, is something that cannot be calculated, as we do not know the code.
Not to mention that a TLH is similar to TL, with the difference of DB used and information that needs to be hidden.

There is no way to define what the current TPE is upon.

There is no way to know how it works exactly. It is not necessary. There are pretty decent indications to have a general understanding of it, which is more than sufficient to discuss the feature. I have provided such discussion in previous messages.

Anyhow, till now, I did not read a single explanation why a new TPE will be better than a TLH.

And why is a "TLH" better than a "TPE" or any other TLA? Have we not been discussing ways to enhance the usefulness of a functionality to provide price information of past transfers? Why does it matter how we call it?

It is good to note that the TPE tool with translations to dozens of languages is available, and it should be possible to integrate transfer search functionality to it (this is also existing code). You have described the TLH feature as a separate page ((210662.1): "there should be a TLH, where one can verify what is a fair price for a player" and "[n]o reason not to have this TLH page"). Is this not pretty much the only difference to existing TPE with a user-controlled search feature? I don't understand why to go that route, when the TPE information we are currently provided is already available right where it is needed the most, i.e. the player page. Just add the search functionality there. The search can happen on a separate page for all I care and let's call that page TLH if you like. The point is that the current TPE is actually quite useful in many cases, an enhanced feature even more so. There is no need to remove it altogether, just to improve it.

Last edited by GM-WallyOop at 2/19/2012 10:14:05 AM

Let's go deeper to the TPE enhancement suggestion (that if there was a GM reading this should have not been discussed on a thread that is nothing about that....

1) Let's say one can choose ALL skills he want to compare, so the comparison will be full (what can easily can be achieved using the TLH).

2) Let's say that the price range will be between close values (which can't be true on the current market due to the system we have today).

3) Let's say that it has all that, and let's say that you can also differentiate between nationalities.

As it will not have that, and in addition, it could not, by definition, using the TPE, get information about the time each deal had been made, it is inferior to the TLH suggestion, and hence less preferred.

What is interesting for me to hear, is why one will try to support a TPE suggestion when all of that are proving the added value of the TLH suggestion.
Not only that, supporting one, and finding the other a bad suggestion that would do harm (harm to whom...).
I know what I believe the reason is...

This is the oppositte of an anonymous approach. With the variables you´re offering it would be easy to get to know the skills of any given player (you know his selling prize, when he was sold, potential, size and nationality in advance). Why don´t you simply ask for non-hidden skills? Would be far less performance nightmare...

This is the oppositte of an anonymous approach. With the variables you´re offering it would be easy to get to know the skills of any given player (you know his selling prize, when he was sold, potential, size and nationality in advance). Why don´t you simply ask for non-hidden skills? Would be far less performance nightmare...

Give the date as a non-exact information - last month, between july and August. etc...
Just to make it clean - the time of the day will still be a clear part of the information.

This is just a fine tuning to a good suggestion.

It brings me back to the question I've finished with at my last message, and I proved to myself that my first impression had not been wrong (not that I needed you additional message to know that...).
Because when one finds smallest flaws that has fast fixes, but does not find any on a suggestion that basically does not change nothing, it is easy to understand "the why"...

Last edited by Pini פיני at 2/19/2012 4:41:59 PM

My assumption of the last 20,000 Pini suggestion posts is, that you lack understanding for how things currently work and keep coming up with isolated "fixes" which would lead to a giant mess you would not spend a single week on before leaving the game as you are currently designing it.

And you don´t even understand my last post. You don´t need the exact date - if you have a basic idea about how a player looks like, it´s only a matter of a few tries to get information about his complete b-skill set by your suggested method of TLH. You would only support coaches with some kind of a stalker personality which would be able to invest some time into "actively" scouting opponents via TL and TLH. In fact, your version of the TLH would most likely worsen things for new teams and players who don´t want to spend 18 hours a day on BB, as it would open up plenty ways of working with the TLH filters to actually track down all your opponents skills. The way some tools work would add up to the problem.

It´s alot easier to simply open up all skills, and that would save TONS of server performance.

You have not come up with a single valid point about why your TLH would be any better than a new and fixed TPE, instead you fail to answer the points about server performance and database stuff. But now that you´re running out of any serious argument, you simply rack up conspiracy theories again...

The good thing... You make me laugh... :D

Your arguments are so transparent and keeps avoiding the real reason why you prefer not having this suggestion that it just making your arguments even more light-weighted than there already are.
The only luck you have here is that I'm not sure there is an option to make it more light-weighted than they are already.

You did not find a single flaw in a suggestion that has a lot (and I brought them all).

To each "claim" that had been brought with a single mean to prevent this suggestion for being implementing, I brought a solution or a contradiction to what it "claims".

And as I wrote few times in the past, and I guess that also on this thread, when those who tries to block suggestion that will make it more a BB-management game fails doing so, they choose to attack the performance and implementation side, as if they have any knowledge whatsoever about that.
This may mislead some of the users.
It will not do so for the BBs who will read this.
Maybe it will make them laugh... [and now that I have a closure to the starting of this message I can finish it...]

Server load. Not targeted. You keep insulting and ranting, and still not adressing the biggest flaw. Server load.

Server load. Not targeted. You keep insulting and ranting, and still not adressing the biggest flaw. Server load.

What is the current server load? By how much it will increase due to this suggestion?
You keep pretending to know those information, but you can only fool innocent users and not the BBs or their implementers.

BTW - some of the biggest fraud on grosaries (and others) is to say (for example) that "product A" has more Calcium (for example) than any competitor at their market.
But when the user / buyer is not that innocent, he finds out that there is no product at that market that would affect them getting to the recommended volume of Calcium per day, as all of the products (at that specific market) has a very low value of Calcium that can be called "nothing" when comparing to this recommended value.
This is what seems that you are trying to do with this "server load" ridiculous "claim".

Last edited by Pini פיני at 2/19/2012 5:52:17 PM

Smoke bombs, insultings, distractions, and still not single point ...

Let´s try again:

Which part about your TLH proposal is so much better than the modified and reworked TPE (which is proposed) that it justifies the extra server load?

Smoke bombs, insultings, distractions, and still not single point ...

Yes, I know your method. No need to say the obvious...

Which part about your TLH proposal is so much better than the modified and reworked TPE (which is proposed) that it justifies the extra server load?

For example... thosehttp://www.buzzerbeater.com/community/forum/read.aspx?thr...