BuzzerBeater Forums

Now it is 5, and this number is further reduced on impact by the doctor. It should be virtually impossible to get someone hacked for more than 4 weeks right now, so I don't see what the problem is there.

During season four, I had a total of 15 weeks of injuries on different players, including 10 weeks from before the All star break... not counting the one game injuries.
Granted I have a basic doctor so my numbers could have been better. Still on a 14 weeks season, that means 1 spot on the roster was devoted to a wounded player.

If this is what's to be expected, and most team has to learn to deal with that kind of situation, fine with me. Yet some teams don't have any long term injury, so it would be nice to know if this is working as intended.

Getting injured players during scrimmage is somehow frustrating, and though it can happen, maybe there could be a lower likelihood or injuries coming during these games could be shorter.

Last edited by Bobun at 5/9/2008 3:58:26 PM

One thing I can tell you is that I don't think there will be double-dipping of the sort where docs shorten the injury 'on impact', and then proceed to make the player heal faster. Nor should there be.

You gave no reason for why there shouldn't be. Care to elaborate?

Sure. It is not necessary. You can transfer any effect you want the doctors to have over the course of the injury (a 'flow' effect) to a reduction upon impact (a 'stock' effect) without loss of functionality. This is how it is being set right now. What you're basically saying, without realizing it, is 'I want doctors to have a stronger effect on injuries when they occur'.

Do you realize the redundancy of your suggestion? Can you please elaborate on _what_ exactly it adds to the game other than an inherent ambiguity about when exactly an injury would end?

Long-term injuries have been effectively eliminated. I don't understand why people keep griping on this. The max injury time used to be 10 weeks. Now it is 5, and this number is further reduced on impact by the doctor. It should be virtually impossible to get someone hacked for more than 4 weeks right now, so I don't see what the problem is there.

You don't think 5 weeks is a long time? 5 weeks is 10 league games (half the season) and 5 cup matches. If a trainee gets a 5 week injury, he has just lost the vast majority of his value.

It is not virtually impossible to have an injury greater than 4 weeks right now. The doctor makes the chance of long injuries unlikely, but you can still get a 5 week injury with a level 10 doctor.

Out of curiousity, because you can't "understand why people keep griping on [sic] this," what's the longest injury you've had in your BB career? How many injuries have you had? What level doctor have you had?

I was an advocate of injury reform in the beginning of last season. I thought 8-109 week injuries were excessive. I am happy with the situation as it was set by the mid-season injury reform.

Really? You can get a +5 with a level 10 doctor? Please, entertain my curiosity and give me an example. My understanding tells me that it is close to impossible, unless the players is 100 years old. That's how I see it:

(1) The injury is sustained. In this step, one could get up to +10 under the old system and about half of this under the new one, so +5 or thereabout.
(2) The injury is affected by the doctor, depending on his level and the player's age. So, in order to have it stay at or close to +5, one should have a really crappy doctor, a very old player, or both.
(3) The injury is displayed on the player's page, at which point the doctor cannot affect it anymore.

All in all, one is aware of these issues when choosing the doctor or the player, so I don't think 5-week injuries are a problem in the game at all.

Can you please elaborate on the type of doctor you had last season and the age of the players that sustained the said injuries?

As for me, for a full season in BB I've had a +6 on a trainee before the reform (I had to fire this guy). Back then my doctor was level 3. I've had a +2 on a NT prospect after the reform with a level 7 doctor. I've had +1 once on a rotation player, and several game injuries (two or tree, I don't remember). I probably could have been less lucky, but that's a risk we all take playing the game.

I understand you want to land as many blows as possible on me (literally and figuratively), but I don't think mocking a grammatical mistake was necessary. I might be a Boston resident at the moment, but I am neither born here, nor am I a native speaker. And while we're there, I am all but anonymous. I'd be happy to meet you for a beer when you're around. You can try to punch me in the face, too, though I don't guarantee that I'm not going to punch back, so do it at your own risk.

That is all. Off the soapbox now.

Last edited by GM-kozlodoev at 5/9/2008 4:20:15 PM

I don't think I've ever wanted to punch another anonymous internet user in the face. At least before your post.

But...would that be a +5 or just a +1?

Depends on whether he can guess which eye I am shortsighted with. No handouts

I was not disregarding the complaint. I was actually trying to assess the merit of the three suggestions you had in your initial post. I just don't find them reasonable, though I am far from thinking the system is without a flaw.

As for your disaster of a season:

First I want to clearly point out that pre- and post- reform situation are clearly different. While I can see the frustration of +8 on a trainee, I'd like to point out that it happened under the old system and with a level 1 doctor. My very rough guess will be that right now, with a decent doctor this will be a +3, give or take half a week.

Second, while the frequency of the other injuries is unpleasant, I don't see anything that compromises a player in the long run (through loss of stamina and game shape). So at least this is good.

The question is how much of an aberration this (half) season was. As with just about anything that has an arbitrary element, someone will be on the wrong side of the random factor. Even with an injury frequency set at an infinitesimally small %, given a sufficient number of users and a sufficient interval of time, someone will have a season comparable to yours. That's the way uncertainty works, and there is really no easy way around it.

The main question is whether one believes that injury frequency is too high on average (which cannot be assessed from your individual example), and whether a high-level doctor should make you invincible (which I think is a clear No).

I pointed out I am not a native speaker. I used the word 'gripe' as I know it, with its first meaning in the Webster dictionary: "to complain naggingly or constantly; grumble". "To complain constantly" seems to be fitting the bill, and I've never seen this particular use as being derogatory. But then again, this is just me.

I particularly meant long-term problems with the players, not with the team. As in, no-one was on the shelf for 4 weeks, losing 3 levels of stamina and 4 levels of game shape. Or something like that.

Beyond that, being able to field a capable line-up even when you have 1 or 2 injuries is a part of managing your roster. Given that quite a number of these injuries were game only, I'd hazard a guess that you probably haven't had 3 players injured at the same time for more than 1 week.

A downside to such an idea is that a user can know that once they hit the threshold, none of their players will be injured for the rest of the season. That being said, if a user hits the threshold, they have been screwed by the random number generator often enough that the knowledge won't be a big advantage.

I thought the whole point of the cap was to prevent from being screwed by the random number generator too much. I don't like this idea for several reasons:

First, because any system with concurrent positive probability events is self-regulating (i.e. it is increasingly less likely to get a large number of consequent 'successes' - in this case, injuries);

Second, where do you draw the line? Do you control for the number or week total of injuries? How do yo deal with game injuries?

If you control for length, this system gives comparative advantage to teams who get several long injuries. Sure, they lose 1 or 2 players for a long time, but the rest of their squad becomes invincible.

If you control for number, then squads that sustained several short injuries are clearly better off.

If you control for both, well, then you get the worst of both worlds.

Third, it just feels plain artificial and unnecessary. It's a can of worms, and it creates more potential problems than it solves.