BuzzerBeater Forums

Hello coach Lolo,

did not obtain any 18-year-old player potential Hall of famer/10+

ΒΒ's implementations to Utopia were to address this problem. However doing that for an exclusive number of countries that would be an example of unfair competition to the rest of the users. I guess they can raise a bit the possibilities but certainly not as much as ''At least 1 Hall of Famer player aged 18 for each league in the country''

I'm not saying that countries like Italy with 1,000 users get the same Hall of famer players per season as those of us who don't exceed 100 users

Its really impressive what you have achieved as a nations and its good that your hard work pays off. Although, you have to keep in mind that its often in big communities some of these highly valued prospects are drafted from newbies/quitting or low budget (IV,V) users so the real difference is not as big as you may think. Farms have the biggest role here but thats another subject to discuss!:D


Best of luck to all this season!

Such a change would play in favor of middle sized nations against micronations. Where Chile would get 5 HOF players, Korea might not even get one since our teams plays in "Nations of..." and the draft is shared with other nations.

Honestly, I did not really think about that part... Thanks for this input!

So I stand even firmer now in support of making any changes to the draft quality via Utopia.

As mentioned by others in other threads the national teams are a "plus" of the BuzzerBeater experience of managers.
They are a plus that involves only a small part of users around the world.
Adapting the whole game to an aspect that should be "plus" risks ruining the very concept of the game which is competition between clubs.

One HoF player for each series in "small/medium" nations would mean giving these managers a much higher hypothetical value than all managers in other states, who would be punished compared to their competitors (we are not just talking about BBM and BBB, but also simply of purchasing power of players / specialists etc.).

Giving more high draws to those who play in the high series (to avoid the tank .. for a change) would make the gap even higher between those who are already at the top and those who have to chase (and here again nations with many managers have a competition much higher than other less numerous nations).

I'm answering as Korea NT coach (perennial 4 users micronations with one squandering generations of draftees).

Such a change would play in favor of middle sized nations against micronations. Where Chile would get 5 HOF players, Korea might not even get one since our teams plays in "Nations of..." and the draft is shared with other nations. But even if all Korean teams had their own nation, we would get one HOF against the 5 for Chile, making it less likely to caught up to them.

The change with Utopia is the right one. It needs tweaking, sure, but that's how we can help everyone fairly without advantaging some countries over others or advantaging micronations teams over teams from bigger countries.

Hello everyone!

I understand that the idea will be to give at least a number of HoF players for each nation. Say 5 players at least for each country. Say 3 players, I don't know. It doesn't matter if is one for the league or 5 in one division. The important point is that without players, you cannot even try to compete in the World Cup. Indeed, I believe that the main point here is the fact that small countries with 0 players HoF with 18 years in a draft precludes those countries from competing for the big prizes. With a few players, you can try to compete, with 0 you cannot even try my friends.

For instance, take Chile and France. Chile drafted zero 18 years old HoF players. On the other hand, France drafted 31 HoF players with 18 years old this season. If you give 5 players to Chile, and you give 36 to France, you create the opportunity for Chile to compete (5 against 36). If you keep things the way they are now, the chances are 0 against 31. This doesn't look fair to me.

I'm speaking as a World Champion with a National Team. I say this just because I'm seeing some posts speaking about competition without saying what they reference for "competing." We need to be clear that one thing is trying to win some games and another different thing is competing for the championship.

Happy to discuss guys!

1) Can we also talk about how much more you have to spend on the roster to have a competitive team beyond the 6/7 round of the cup?
Having good players means spending more on average.
I clearly don't know how much average income and expenses are for series in a medium/small country, but it would be interesting to compare them.

2) Do the reverse count, how likely is a team to draw a HoF now? I guess it's the same for everyone (same chance that there is a HoF in the draft list in your series, more choice in the draft with the risk of it ending up in the hands of bot teams).
If you arbitrarily decide that states with X users are eligible for one HoF per series, those odds increase dramatically.

You continue to reckon as a national team manager.
I am glad for you that you are fully committed to this, but the game is based on clubs.
Balance rules must be made for clubs not for national teams.
Among the proposals it seems to me that the least unbalancing one at the club level is the one that goes to allocate the new players of Utopia, among other things they often happen to people who already have a bit of experience and desire to play and non-users who connect once a month and almost never reply to private messages sent by the managers of the teams of the small nations (I speak from experience).