BuzzerBeater Forums

So first of all I have to thank Marin and all of the BB's for making such a fun manager game that I've enjoyed for these past ten and a half seasons. I would however be lying if I said that this game is perfect, and whilst it does a lot of things right, I feel that the salary formula might be a bit off.

My main concerns is that Jump Shot is far too expensive in the SF salary formula, whilst Inside Shot is very cheap for PG/SG/SF's. And Outside Defence is also a relatively cheap skill compared to it's usefulness. My theory is that it's these flaws that make it easier to build a team that plays inside tactics better than outside, and in general, makes three point shooting percentages in the game very low for a game that's trying to simulate professional basketball.

BB-Marin, have you ever considered making a major change (not just tweaking one skills effect) to the salary formula to try and correct some of these imbalanced formulas and make it easier to run a predominately outside shooting team? And if so, how easy or difficult do you think it would be to make and enforce the formula changes in practice?

When I was searching a top french player, I was competing against team which had a balance of +10, +20 and +50M in their transfert list. Once they recruit a top player at a decent price, they put him in the trade market again until they find someone ready to pay +20-50% of the price they brought it.

So I'm curious to know what your think about it. Will you take care of this or you consider it's acceptable ?

What is actually wrong here? Any team has the right to buy and sell players. Is it OK if they profit? Yes, if it's not daytrading. Especially if they receive additional training. Maybe I missed your point here, please explain if I did.

Hmm I though it was a well known problem, but as it should be a very low number of players. What looks wrong is these team had daytrading in the past and accumulated money. Then they evolved to continue to do profit with top players now. Of course I didn't check every players and I don't remember their ID so I can't give you clear example.

I just remember Le Saout because he was a U21 world champion player at the potential limit. Sold around 1 M at young age. And put on sale at 2 M at 25 years old ... but he was already at his limit ! 0.o

My point is these team are killing the hope of casual players team who can't follow every bid. I don't mind losing a bid but when I see the same player on sale some minute after, and usually for weeks, it's irritating. It's not daytrading as it takes weeks to find someone willing to pay the high price, but most of time, they aren't training the player either.

I guess you can check the history of brought players put on sale just after. If you add an history like that in your database. If you get my point, I'm still curious of what you thought about this.

#1 Would it be extremely difficult to do this (programming wise)
Week 1, no league game, CUP game on Saturday
Week 2~12 (11 weeks) 2 league games a week, 1 home game a week for everyone (I can show you how to schedule it if need be), Tue and Saturday games like right now. No 2 homes and no 2 aways in the same financial week. No 1 game weeks.
Week 13 quarters and semis
Week 14 FInals
rinse and repeat.

Additionally the allstar game probably best on a Sunday, allstar weekend. I don't really care about how or where the allstar game happens as do most of the users...or even if it happens....

#2
Are you looking at changing how the attendance works. Specifically less income for tanking/walkover teams and more for high-end teams that maybe lost their last game only....and maybe less for the #1 team and more for the #4 teams.

#3
Good work on making training a little better each of the last two seasons. Less of a question ~ Please consider improving it further as time goes on. Overall reception of the babysteps has been good correct?

#4
Please don't over compensate the tactics adjustments. Have you considered interfering with the vets in the market from users who have quit/are stuck in the LI era. Without tactical changes/GE changes, changing the actual market might improve the situation. When shopping for players, I think everyone will agree, its just easier to build inside because of what people have trained. High JR is nowhere near as common as high OD. This obviously HAS to have something to do with 3 pt %. Salary concerns are an issue, but changes you made to how much JR impacts salary have not been taken advantage of by many builders. So LI remains dominate.
Simplfied quetsion- Have you considered fixing the imbalance through the market/salary formula/training in addition to/instead of further GE changes.

As you can guess issues I really am concerned with are autobid, micronations and taxing profit versus transfer amount with no limit on the frequency of transfers ( the more activity the better for you advert income wise) But I do not even want you to waste space here addressing those issues since they ahve been talked to death and there is no hope ;)

#1. No it wouldn't. To even consider it is another thing.

#2. We had a interesting proposal here, which I don't mind sharing. Having less than 50% (or another arbitrary percentage, need to research for it) of your opponents points in a match would trigger "fan riots" in matches which earn attendance money (basically home league and PO matches). These "riots" would result in some property damage which would be taken out of the attendance income (again, a fixed percentage). As you see, the problem here is away matches. Maybe we could implement a fixed fine or something instead... I'm not sure yet, it's just an idea (and would punish teams tanking because of their cup matches). Also, it doesn't look at previous results, true, but the problem lies in the definition of a tanking team and how do we detect it. This is something I'm willing to get some suggestions about.

#3. Yes.

#4. Yeah, we are aware that the state of the market might have a bigger impact on the choice of users' tactics than actual players' impact in the GE. We've made some steps to tackle that; making JR cheaper was one thing, a small improvement in the balance between training types was another. Also, we are considering doing something on the 3pt% aspect too. The market is LI dominant, I agree, but it's hard to fix that quickly and without overcompensating. One idea is to exclude old players from free agency, with inside (or just taller) players being excluded sooner.

Training inside has always been a bit easier (2 skills less to worry about), but we always thought that their salary cost and small market value would discourage users from training them. We were only partially wrong.

1. Have you think any time, change the World Cup?

2. Do you think that another payment way can be introduced for southamerican community?

1. No.

2. We are working on it. UltimatePay will soon be introduced. We've got most of the system already in place and it will replace PayByCash.

BB-Marin, have you ever considered making a major change (not just tweaking one skills effect) to the salary formula to try and correct some of these imbalanced formulas and make it easier to run a predominately outside shooting team? And if so, how easy or difficult do you think it would be to make and enforce the formula changes in practice?

No, major changes in salary would probably result in a user revolt. We must take things slow and cautiously. It's pretty easy to make these changes, but it's very hard to predict their effects.

Hmm I though it was a well known problem, but as it should be a very low number of players. What looks wrong is these team had daytrading in the past and accumulated money. Then they evolved to continue to do profit with top players now. Of course I didn't check every players and I don't remember their ID so I can't give you clear example.

I just remember Le Saout because he was a U21 world champion player at the potential limit. Sold around 1 M at young age. And put on sale at 2 M at 25 years old ... but he was already at his limit ! 0.o

My point is these team are killing the hope of casual players team who can't follow every bid. I don't mind losing a bid but when I see the same player on sale some minute after, and usually for weeks, it's irritating. It's not daytrading as it takes weeks to find someone willing to pay the high price, but most of time, they aren't training the player either.

I guess you can check the history of brought players put on sale just after. If you add an history like that in your database. If you get my point, I'm still curious of what you thought about this.

Again, buying a player for a low price and then selling him afterwards for a much higher price is not against the rules. That's not daytrading and it's not even unfair. Also, as I said, selling him right after would make no sense because of the high transfer tax rate. What you're seeing in the transfer page doesn't include the tax paid. Maybe then that manager wouldn't be in the green after all. Casual players have the same chance of buying nice (even NT) players just like everyone else, but since it takes time and effort (to raise the money), they do so rarely. I guess what bothers you most is that such players carry a very high price which only some managers are prepared to pay. They are luxury, as they should be. And the fact that bothers you even more is that sometimes, a persistent manager gets lucky and buys such a player under value. That's not illegal, it's just a combination of patience, persistence and luck. Nothing wrong there.

I'm sorry if I sound harsh, I don't want to go deeper into this discussion. We disagree on a basic, underlying level, hence our conclusions cannot align either. Let's agree to disagree and move on, please.

Thank you for the feedback. And with this I would conclude the "Ask a BB Day". I hope you all had a nice experience, I know I did. I won't promise doing it again, but I wouldn't mind, if circumstances allow it. Cheers!