Survey results and direction of further game development

2021-02-20

First of all, we would like to thank the community for such activity in the previous survey. We got feedback from 760 members of the BasketPulse community. This is a significant increase from our previous survey.

Federations were valued positively by 91% of the respondents.

Administration got 94% positive evaluations.

Fair play committee got 85% positive evaluations.

Drafts update got 61% positive evaluations.

Regarding Drafts, users would like to see these changes:

246 - Better skills distribution for ready-now players
235 - More young talents
119 - More ready-now players
83 - More basketball schools' students
67 - No changes needed

Results of the voting about the next update:

212 (153) - Updating match engine
132 (138) - Updating coaches' system
110 (100) - Fixing unclear game's areas
110 (89) - Changes in the system of national leagues
101 (147) - Individual skills of players and coaches
59 (53) - Including friendly tournaments
18 (36) - New system for chatting during Matches LIVE
10 (32) - Including users' ranking

* In the brackets you can see how many users voted the update as their “second choice”

So, what next?

The winner voted by the community is obvious - match engine update!

In the upcoming weeks we are going to review all TODOs we have related with the match engine and prepare a plan:

what issues we can solve without “long delay” (for example, fix the fifth foul bug)
what balancing updates we can do by very small steps - including small changes every season until it reaches the goal (for example, decreasing or increasing efficiency of some skill/tactic)
what bigger updates that make big impact we want to do and how long we should delay the inclusion of such changes - to give time to the community for preparation
we will create an investment area for the match engine for some bigger updates. However, we will start working on bug fixes and small balancing updates without waiting for additional funds in the investment area.
as the match engine update will be a slow and long process, we also plan to create investment areas for “updating coaches' system” and “changing the system of national leagues”. Both of these updates are important for the game.

We understand that you all have suggestions regarding these updates but please give us a bit of time to review the situation and then you can point out what we have missed. We will write more specific news article about the planned updates and we will wait for suggestions there.

Drafts event and players

Very often we see suggestions related to improving drafts' players, decreasing minimum players' salaries, increasing retirement age, etc.

All such changes must be done thinking not only about the current game's situation but also how everything will be after 5, 10 or even 20 seasons.

From the beginning of the game, the idea was that the franchise player would be the key player for every new team. That worked well, but at some point game updates created players' RT inflation (more top-level talents were created and players' career length increased)

Now even in the lowest leagues it is difficult to give time for young franchise players.

Also when we evaluate drafts’ talents, we have to address the upcoming changes in the match engine and the reducing number of super talents in the game.

Therefore our active work with the Drafts update has ended. We understand that not every ready-now player can find a way to team, but regarding the upcoming changes in the match engine and players' market, we don't think that it is a good idea to spend much more time in this area.

However, we implemented players' types in the way that they can be changed quite easily.

So if the community finds out that one or another player type is implemented very wrong - we can try to do some balancing on the concrete players skills' types.

Back to the Main page

4.4 4.2 a-ramune

Game's news: Survey results and direction of further game development

-- 80 S 13 d.

Survey results and game improvement plans in news!

-- (Translate) (Translate EN)

+15

TheWizardKs-bot

Keeping the managers involved by sending surveys is a very good model to implement. Thank you. -- 80 S 13 d.

-- (Translate) (Translate EN)

+10

1.1 1.1 Gudrioji Lape

Hi, good! Like everything except the ready now players part. I suggest setting some minimum skills for each type for each league. Really, then the usefulness will be much better. Let say defensive center would have at least 4-5 passing rather than 2. Maybe even it can be done in simple way of having the same minimum level for all skills wl1-2 minimum 4-5 for each. -- 80 S 13 d.

-- (Translate) (Translate EN)

Wilt100

Is there a way to see a breakdown of "next big update" votes from 1-2WL teams? Usually those who complain about GE don't take their time to analyze their games and adjust tactics accordingly. It will never be perfect... -- 80 S 14 d.

-- (Translate) (Translate EN)

3.1 3.3 a-darius

Gudrioji Lape:
Actually we had minimum skill for passing in the first version of the draft. But few top level teams from the first league explained that it is not required - so it was removed in the second draft version.

Wilt100:
I don`t have a prepared statistic, but I just checked WL1.1. Most of the votes went to:
Updating match engine (11 votes)
Updating coaches' system (11 votes) -- 80 S 14 d.

-- (Translate) (Translate EN)

Y 1 Vitucii

What is your position regarding the fact that it is basically enough to have 8 players on the roster and win the league. Even with 5 strong players and 3 very weak you may be a contender. Then, a team with 10-12 more equally strong players is likely to lose. Also, the whole world ranking system is not correct because of that as the 8 player teams rank much lower than their real power appears to be. It is probably relevant to the higher leagues as well, but I speak from my position in W4 and W5 as examples. -- 80 S 15 d.

-- (Translate) (Translate EN)

3.1 3.3 a-darius

Vitucii:
A bit of history of the game:
Many seasons ago we used to have a bit more realistic injuries. And with injuries teams had to have more players. However the community was against this (as this makes the game more difficult) and eventually random injuries were removed.
And based on users’ satisfaction - it was a good decision.

With Drafts update in the game we have a new type of players - players who can get injuries. As with time amount of such players will increase - probably teams will use more players in the future. -- 80 S 15 d.

-- (Translate) (Translate EN)

1.1 4.1 Vitucii

Thanks for your reply.
I suppose there should be more accumulated fatigue or something that prevents the teams from only having 8 players. Now it is neither realistic (any team that plays a real life 8 plr rotation all season) nor fair against the 10-12 player teams... :)

And as I mentioned the rankings do not reflect the strength at all in such situation. -- 80 S 15 d.

-- (Translate) (Translate EN)

1.1 3.3 Fjord

Some thoughts regarding above topic.

Since team VK calculated based on 9 highest VK players one the roster, as mentioned by Vitucii it doesn't reflect true strength of teams rankings with 7-8 players. For example team with +9 players has 5 rank in world and team with 7-8 has like 25 rank, but their actual strength can be easily on par. It looks confusing and it also has some effect, for example world grouping is based on team ranks, therefore one group can be much stronger than others, simply because "25 rank" team (7-8 players) has strength on par with "5 rank". It also affects fan club expectations for teams, but that probably not so important.

So the fact that team VK is calculated based on 9 players, it would logical that everyone has to have at least 9 players on roster. I think some implications could be made to push users towards that. For example if you play with only 7 or 8 players you have to pay some kind of fee for not having at least 9 players. It would involve more risk for users to go with this strategy, cause currently you can easily get away with it and feels bad for teams having full rosters. I am not sure if idea that having 7-8 players is more optimal way to play the game. Not sure how it affects top world leagues, but world 4 and lower there a lot of such cases.

You mentioned that with draft update, there will be more players prone to injuries, but you can just ignore those and pick healthy ones, not sure if it will have much impact for this particular problem.

Thanks. -- 80 S 16 d.

-- (Translate) (Translate EN)

1.1 3.3 Fjord

Topic - live games.

I was thinking it would be cool if users could have impact during live games.

My suggestion, that after 2 quarter ends, during the break you could be able to change team tactics.

It would involve more strategy and reward players who follow live games. -- 80 S 16 d.

-- (Translate) (Translate EN)

salvius

I have few answers For Fjord :
First of all, Live game tactic adjustments was hot topic back in a days, but I guess that is easy to understand that not gonna happened, because of part of daytime we can spend in this game. Most of us have jobs and other responsibilities and it will be such a big booster for those who have time and can adjust tactics on live games. It would be interesting as a game event or as we talked earlier about friendly tournaments. If it would be like that it would be very interesting and a lot of fun to play against friends compete with others with live adjustments, but on the other hand, this isn't possible to do on Main events such as WL and NL tournaments.
Another point, about 7-8-9 players difference in ranking system and so on. Your suggested way isn't bad, but even I know how to counter that very easily( and I am not the smartest one here). as Example, You are offering a tax for lack of players in your team. Imagine, it will be around 10k per week at least for one missing player( it depends on WL, and i am talking about 3wl right now). So after 9 weeks you have to pay 90k, yeah it looks impactful, but it isn't, all you need is to buy a player from market for 500 and after 9 weeks you saved about 85k money. I am thinking that this situation have to change at some point, but as we see in 1-2 WL there everyone(Maybe not everyone but bigger part) have more than 8 players for sure. It is the only way if you want to be contender for something.
All in all, we as a community have to suggest new updates, new ways how to make this game more realistic and fun for everyone and bring here more people. Have a Great Day all of you <3 Stay safe.. -- 80 S 16 d.

-- (Translate) (Translate EN)

1.1 3.3 Fjord

Great points, thanks for reply. Will think about other ideas. -- 80 S 16 d.

-- (Translate) (Translate EN)

Show hidden replies: 11

1.1 3.3 Fjord

Topic - National leagues / National teams

I have a suggestion to reward users, which win their national leagues 1.1. (basically best team of each country). They would get an offer to run for a position of national team leader.

You will get like few days to decide and accept an offer, if you don't then it follows as usual and everyone else can go for national teams.

I think it's a great reward for being best in your country, it would make a competition more meaningful in national leagues and there are U21, U18, U16 that would still be open for everyone to apply, if let's say all national teams are occupied.

Thanks. -- 80 S 16 d.

-- (Translate) (Translate EN)

salvius

Only 2 of us are discussing right now :DD Few Things as a previous time:
First of all, it would be interesting to see how it looks and how it works in real life, because IF there is " Ceteris paribus" ( everything will be the same like it is now) it won't work, because National leagues aren't that important and interesting to be there. First we have to make so changes to national teams, give more rewards to players or more credit to country as it was before( I understood why those changes were made, but can bring it back with some changes). Pretty simple question, how often best managers of each nationality wants to compete as a national team coach ? It is kind a rare, and when they want, community 99/100 times will choose the best manager for their country. If there will be some adjustments to rewards as example, if country did better than expected, they can get some bonuses for scouting, drafting, and for something else( we have to discuss about it ) then changes to national leagues will be very good.
All in all, I am very happy that we as a community have some active players who want to find a new things, or make old things better for all of us. This change might be good, but it there are some things to do before it.. -- 80 S 16 d.

-- (Translate) (Translate EN)

TheWizardKs-bot

The team average being based on 9 players really does need an adjustment. I have complained about it many times. It is not right to say we lost to a team that was weaker than us when the actual players have a higher team average than we do. I have given up on trying to change it. National Teams ( U16, U18, U21, Mens ) has always been a terrible idea IMHO. It gives away your players skills for one thing, something that gets shared, and costs the Administration credits as no one needs to analyze these players. Also the player that will be 21 during U21 will be 1 year too young/old for U16 or U18. So if we are going to be serious, they should all play every year. -- 80 S 22 d.

-- (Translate) (Translate EN)

Survey results and direction of further game development

Quickguide

Report this post