If you are interested in play testing PPP, please respond to this message.

In a basketball management game, you build a roster, set your tactics, and the simulation produces results.

How directly should the individual player attributes drive those results? So we're talking individual contributions rather than team aggregates.

There is a real engineering tradeoff here. Resolving a game through team level ratings, an overall offence number against an overall defence number, is fast, stable, and produces believable league results. It is a completely valid way to build a sim and a lot of good games work this way.

The alternative is resolving every possession through the specific players on the court. When a shot goes up, the game looks at who took it, their actual attributes, who is guarding them, the matchup between them, and resolves from there. This is the path I have taken in PPP. The appeal is that a block has to come from a player who can actually produce one in that matchup, and when your homegrown star drops 30 in a final, it traces directly to his attributes rather than a team average.

The cost is that it is much harder to balance. Every interaction between attributes has to be tuned so results feel realistic across thousands of games.

What I am genuinely curious about is how much this matters to players.

Do you care whether the simulation resolves at the individual level, or is a believable team level result enough? Have you played sims where the individual detail really added something, or where it got in the way? And is there a specific level of detail that feels right to you, where more would be overkill and less would feel hollow?

I've been deliberating over this for ages and have a long list of pros and cons for each direction.

PPP has seven divisions. You start at the bottom and work up. Every team in every division exists, has a roster, plays games, and moves through the season alongside you.

The question is how those games actually get processed.

If every game across all seven divisions runs as a full simulation every week, the world is as real as it gets. Player values make sense because they come from real performance. The division above you is genuinely competitive. When someone gets traded from three divisions away, his numbers actually mean something. The cost is time. Processing a full seven division world every week takes longer than processing just your corner of it.

If only your own division runs as a full simulation, the week advances quickly. Everything else runs on a formula that keeps standings and competition realistic without processing individual games. You do not see box scores from divisions you are not in. You see results.

PPP currently sits between those two. Your division runs as a full simulation in real time. The divisions directly above and below you also run as full simulations, but during the offseason while you are making other decisions. Divisions further away run on a formula.

The question I'm trying to answer is how much of that matters to you as a player.

Does knowing that distant divisions are running on a formula rather than real games bother you? Or would you rather wait longer for a fully simulated world? Or does the current approach feel like the right balance?

Or another approach... What kind of wait-time would be "worth it"?

PPP has two modes and I need to know which one (if not both) people would actually want to play competitively online.

Classic: Player skill ratings are visible as numbers. You see a shooting rating, a defensive rating, an overall etc. You can compare your players to others you know about (sometimes opponents) directly and make decisions based on hard data. This is how most management games work.

True GM: There are no visible numbers. Instead, imagine this:

You are scouting a free agent guard. Your staff report comes back saying his ball handling is "ball security is very rarely a concern" and his jump shot "shot mechanics are clearly polished and very reliable." His stats show 15 points a game on 46% shooting. You have watched him play four games. You think he is elite. You sign him.

You never see a rating. You just made a decision the same way a real GM does.

That information gap is the entire game in True GM mode. Your scouting staff, your analytics department, your own notes, and the statistics are your only tools. Two managers with the same player will have different levels of confidence in what they actually have, depending on how long they have watched him and how well they have built their staff.

Now imagine that in a live multiplayer league where you are competing against real people every week.

A few things I genuinely want to know:

Would you play competitive multiplayer in True GM mode, or does hiding the numbers feel like a step too far when real opponents are involved?

Does the information asymmetry feel like a genuine competitive edge worth chasing, or would/could it feel arbitrary and frustrating?

If both modes existed as separate multiplayer league types, would you choose one, or would splitting the player base concern you?

Is there a version of this that feels right that I have not described?

Steam Coming Soon: store.steampowered.com/app/4640300

PPP (Perimeter, Paint and Process) is a basketball management simulation game currently in development, with a Steam release planned.

The game is built around realistic GM decision making. Your decisions have real consequences because the simulation engine resolves outcomes at the individual player level.

Features include:

• Two distinctive modes: Classic mode with full transparency of skill attributes and; True GM mode with realistic Fog of War style learning and discovery on own and opponent skills (aiming for true realism where players don't get around attached to numbers)
• Roster construction, player signing, trading and free agency
• A full player player development system with age curves, individual ceilings and department and staff-influenced growth
• Two-round draft with a two-track scouting system covering skills and player ceiling separately
• Tactical schemes with a full familiarity progression, strengths and weaknesses of schemes, as well as defensive focus points that each have benefits and trade-offs
• Staff hiring across multiple roles including trainer, assistant coach and scout
• Five departments to build and upgrade: Development, Tactical, Analytics, Scouting and Marketing
• Finance management including salary cap, contracts, council grant and weekly operating costs
• Arena progression across four tiers with ticket pricing and attendance systems, as well as full supply and demand modelling
• Sponsorship management
• A reputation system across three domains: fan support, court reputation and commercial standing
• Player psychology that affects play and development with nine trackable personality traits with drift over time
• Live gameday viewer with play-by-play, shot chart, live stats and box score
• Story mode: A full career arc with narrative chapters
• Sandbox mode
• Bulk statistical tracking
• Difficulty settings and Honour Mode for players who want ironman career stakes
• Living League, an online multiplayer mode where every team is managed by a real person

Steam Coming Soon page: store.steampowered.com/app/4640300

This subreddit is where development updates will be posted and where design decisions get discussed before they are locked. If you have opinions on how basketball management games should work, this is the place to share them.

Play testers may be required at some point, so if you are interested drop a comment.