BuzzerBeater Forums

Suggestions > Each season a project

Each season a project

Set priority
Show messages by
This Post:
00
285040.2 in reply to 285040.1
Date: 3/12/2017 11:44:42 AM
Leones del Cinaruco
FCBBP
Overall Posts Rated:
27092709
1. I don't like it. It gives an advantage to the users with more time online.

2. I really like it. This encourage to achieve goals. However, how to avoid the strongest teams getting more stronger?

3. The current system is the fairest one. Give more chances to use all the tactics instead just a couple.

This Post:
11
285040.3 in reply to 285040.1
Date: 3/12/2017 1:35:38 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
8686
I really like the concept of this, and it would most certainly make the game more realistic. For number 2 and 3 I'd say go for it.

I have a bit mixed feeling about number 1, and see both upsides and downsides. It would be very fun, to be forced to plan ahead at preseason, and then adjust at AS-break with a couple of final additions.

Upsides: It would probably lower the inflation that has hit us. Yes the demand would be huge, since every team would be looking to buy players in the short off-season. However, the supply would be accordingly larger, since every manager would also be looking to sell players in this timespan. It would take away the ability to list a player at a crazy price and then just relist him over and over again until someone finally bites.
Also it would give the BB's a better chance to manage the market prices, since they could unretire a number of players, matching the demand there is. This way they could even out supply and demand and achieve a fair market equilibrium.

Downsides: It would make it harder to keep new users than it already is, since they would be stuck with a team full of trash players. Personally, if I signed up and found out I had to wait more than a month before I could make any real change to my roster, I probably wouldn't stick around. This would also take away the option to train a few players, since the team you start with only have one somewhat trainable player. In order to counter this, new teams would have to be awarded at least 3 quality trainees, and even then you wouldn't have the ability to add any players that can make an in-game impact

This Post:
00
285040.5 in reply to 285040.4
Date: 3/12/2017 5:16:16 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
8686
Yes I agree, not spending all the bonuses on players in the beginning would be ideal. But for new users it would probably just seem restrictive and boring. Maybe the new checklist will do the trick, we'll just have to wait and see