BuzzerBeater Forums

The zones I play work extremely well in that department. I held my opponents to 61, 80 and 84 points with one "problematic" game of 109. Now the bad side is that I can´t score atm, but that´s a different story. Nevertheless: my zones work. Just have to work out how to limit my fouling ...

If I walk into a restaurant and pay $5 for a beer and give me a glass of water and say 'We are broke'...I rightly ask....

Q: How is this relative to the situation in this game?
A: It isn't. First of all, you have never paid for this game.Secondly, I don't see this game advertising anything that it isn't providing. For free, no less. As a non-paying customer who routinely logs on 6+ times a day, I would say the situation should be you walk into a bar and ask for a glass of water and the bartender gives you a keg. Then you whine that it's not porter, because that's the kind of beer you like and deserve to be given.


What do you think rent costs in Boston? What do you think operating costs (electricity, hardware, maintenance, insurance,tax, etc.) for a business are in the USA? What do you think salaries for however few employees are on this payroll amount to?

ps- I paid for Supporter long before I became a GM. I will pay for it when I stop being a GM.


Last edited by somdetsfinest at 2/22/2012 12:27:17 PM

Wait a second.

First you said this in response to Marin's answers: "he says nothing in a deep way, he seems a politician instead a programmer ..."

And now he's not being polite enough? I'll agree that there are times in the bug forum when Marin's answers could be phrased a little more gently (though perhaps you'd complain about him being too much a politician in that case), but having reread the answers to in the now pinned "Ask the BBs" thread, I don't see a single one that I would characterize as being impolite. Can you point to one specifically? And not your own interpretation of what he said, as you went through, but what he actually said.

And actually, having reread his response to Coco's question on LI, that seems to be the most clear statement I've seen from the BBs that LI is hard to defend because SB is not high enough, and that perimeter based tactics don't work because JR is not high enough. But now you still want more proof, by him making a fictitious team and winning B3 with it? That's simply asking too much. Instead, you'll just have to wait for some members of the community to train up a new generation of players with a new skill set.

An economic balance is the EXACT OPPOSITE of pretty much ANY realistic economical concept IRL. Because IRL economy is based on CONSTANT GROWTH (which is quite an absurd theory overall, but that would lead to philosophical or even political debates, so let´s ignore that).

Working in a STABLE system is a pretty uncommon concept for the most of us, as anybody is "expecting the next boost just around the corner". Maybe we should take this as a challenge, and we should try working around instead of using our "growth based" solutions for a "stable based" problem?

About the economy, working on a stable system doesn't mean encouraging the teams to tank&stand by's and having a poor competition, with the same teams going down&up every season like a lift.

The actual system subsidizes the managers who decides to give up the competition, it's a fact.

(low salary salaries allowed and when they promote they have a bonus for promoting so they have great incomes on that season).

Meanwhile there are other managers that if doesn't like to give up matches because it's not fun, they lose money week after week and if they want to promote they have to play a risky strategy like training in 1 seasons only primary skills or selling sustainable players and hiring monsters with the consequences that if it doesn't work they will go 2-3 steps back

The only escape for the competitive managers was the transfer list. Those who tried to build nice players had the option to go to the market and pick up some benefits by selling the players, but now the demand and supply is far from reach an equilibrium, in fact i don't see any equilibrium there, the inflation of the past wasn't good, but the depreciation we have now it's bad too.

The ''stable system'' has to attract the managers to play the games(at least on a competitive way), because if not then the managers lose the interest on the competition and end leaving the game(it's not weird to read opinions from managers that they just keep playing the game because they want to keep in touch with the community but anything more).

From my experience on this game, i know that making a change on the economy won't satisfy everybody, but a change on this area is needed to change the incomes of the teams.

Last edited by Marot at 2/22/2012 12:40:29 PM

Just an example so you see it's not a theory about what i'm talking

(76132)

S17 wins the Cup losing money during that season.

S18 he still have a nice team, keep advancing on Cup, but at the end of the season he decides to make an stand by and even of that he won the semifinals of the cup, but on the final he gave up because he already took the decision to save money.

(42332602) It's a final cup, not joking

And this season he directly tanks and sold 3/4 of his team.

Last edited by Marot at 2/22/2012 12:56:29 PM

I think any growing system supports a bunch of few, while any stable system has a huge "floating" and convexion part and is easier to get to the top. Trying to win means spending more than others and most likely a period of less sucess as you have to "refuel" your tanks. So to some degree, economical up and down is really part of a stable system.

What many people seem to be missing is that Marin opened up different "backdoors" how to exploit the current tactical choices with concepts which -might- be less expensive. I read his statements as if there´s a shortcut many people fail to see because they get blinded by the succeess (and the jam, nowadays) on the "fast lane".

by the way, the other part, saying LI is hard because SB is not high enough is like saying nothing, because its impossible having a good team and have a high SB ... for that i want to see a practice match without seeing skills, but seeing how a good SB team win a good team ...

how much is high SB ??? 18? 15? 10? have we go up SB to 20??? then we dont attack ... we only defend or we have a 2M roster

If you intend to build a team like everyone else, yes, it's going to be impossible for it to be functionally different from everyone else.

The overwhelming "wisdom" is that SB is too expensive, never mind that a pop in SB costs half a pop in IS, ID or RB.
But, you might say, we can't give up IS, ID, or RB, because LI is the only way to play and 2-3 doesn't work.
One might then counter that you could give up IS, and maybe play outside.
But, you might say, we can't do that because JR is too expensive and outside game does not work.
One could then suggest you could use some of the savings from giving up IS and apply that wage room to JR on the 1, 2 and 3, and instead of having guards with huge passing and bigs with low passing, balance it out.
But, you might then say, nobody does that, so obviously it can't work.

And so on. At some point, the crux of the matter is that it always comes back to the "proof" that nobody does it, so it's impossible. And then because it's "impossible" nobody does it.

I, for one, don't know that it is impossible, nor do I know that it is possible. I do know that as long as nobody ever tries, and instead just complains about the option not being possible, we'll never know. And as I'm not good enough of a manager or trainer yet (or possibly ever) to do this one way or another, I'm not sure I'll be part of the answer either. But intellectual curiosity makes me feel like dismissing 2-3 / outside / shotblocking / JR as impossibilities with the absence of an actual documented attempt at making it work is poor logic, whether or not it turns out to eventually be proven or disproven.

I have to conclude that nothing anyone says will really change your mind on what the BBs say is important for defending LI. Apparently that makes me a childish believer, and Marin a bad politician. I'd say it makes you a close minded person regarding this issue.

How much SB is needed? I honestly have no idea. Nobody in the community does. Nobody trains it, so there are very few relevant player builds out there. Check the crowdsourcing training analysis if you don't believe me. Out of 5789 weeks of training added, 29 have been single position shot blocking. And this lack of SB trained players makes your statement that you cannot build a good SB team that is 'good' pure guesswork. You believe that to be the case, but you don't have any real evidence for that.

I assume you're only going off the notion that to take your big from 17/17/17/8 to 17/17/17/17 is expensive in terms of salary. Well of course it is, but obviously the manager must make a tradeoff, and reduce one or more of the other salary inflating skills. Can an manager make a player that is overall more effective by adding some SB, and taking some other inside skills away? Again, I don't know.

But the BBs have essentially said that SB is more worthwhile that the community thinks (exactly as Charles said in the past), and I believe that they know what they are talking about, and that they are being truthful. From there, it's up to the community to answer the rest of the questions, like how much SB is really needed, how much other inside skills can be reduced to trade off for the SB, and how best to train players to defend LI.

On the past i remember BB-Charles and others BB's talking about things of the game engine&skills in a wide way, but never saying how it works.

That's because they wrote the game engine and designed how the skills should work and interact in it. They really built it all. With that background, of course they are able to give more information and discuss things without revealing too much. Clearly BB-Marin is in a different position, and his tasks also differ. I think he has repeatedly said he is not the game engine guy.

If we ask for information about new features or their opinion about new changes, it think we all expect a more extended answer apart from saying:
''We are working on new features''
''We are discussing it''

If that is the status, we should not be expecting much more on such topic. And seeing how the focus of development these past months has been on stability and optimizations, we should not expect for the status to be much different. Of course, I was also hoping to hear something more on the new features (like a general topic). However, they may also be working on a number of (smaller and bigger) features that cover pretty much the entire site.

Overall, I think this was again a useful exercise, although the surprise factor was pretty low.