BuzzerBeater Forums

What's so horrible, and how is it horrible?

edit - i mean, based on this assumption that is causing people to jump to conclusions.

First I refer to my original post: (72142.70)

The motivation for introducing this "foreign player tax" is to making good better use of player nationalities (the good/better typo is from the news btw). This is a pretty weak motivation to introduce something that will limit the playability for most teams. You try to solve a non existing problem and limit the game as a consequence.

In this thread another motivation has been mentioned. Namely, that their is an unfair competition today, where top teams from small leagues get a benefit in the BBB because they have better economy and can use this to buy all top players. If this is the case, and it is seen as a problem, the problem should of course be fixed at the where it is created, i.e. income for top teams in minor leagues should be decreased. Trying to solve a problem by targeting the symptons than the real problem is almost always a horrible solution.

Please don't explain it by Hattrick not everyone is playing that game:)

Why? That's like communism the goverment would say you what you can and what you can't. Since the freedom of choice of starategy is doing no harm (agree?) I don't see why limit the options.

I think you should have waited for a couple of weeks with a bombshell like this: managers fear they are going to be hit where it hurts most: in their wallet. And because of that nobody is paying attention to the goodies that will come into effect in a couple of days... There have been over 10 post in 15 minutes since your post, and none is in reaction to your post.

This is a little bit off topic, but it seems like a lot of this debate is coming from speculation about the details of this system. We tried very hard to announce very far in advance that this would be happening in order to minimize the impact on teams who decide to adjust their long-term strategy as a result and in order to minimize the impact on the transfer market.

However, we've also made a number of changes this offseason that we really did want to make sure were given proper attention, and we really did not want to spend a lot of time in what was already going to be a long news post focusing on the details of a system for two seasons from now.

Do you think it was a mistake to announce something like this without details? What would have been a better option?

I think announcing in advance is a must since different managers seek different strategies and value things differently.

I think it would be great to add some reasoning why such a change should be implemented. Cause i don't see any good.

For the record - I'm not in a position to be trapped by this (if the impact would be that horrible) and I'm willing to help NT of my country. Still don't see how this should help Buzzerbeater.

National team problems shouldn't influence team competitions. NT managers who care usually find their way for best prospects to be trained. An again if the prospect is good, wise manager would train him no matter his nationality. Of course if you would have to choose between tow identical players majority of managers would prefer the player from their country. But i doubt you can say good prospects are neglected. You should rather improve quality or density of useful (not necessary top) prospects or/and change the balance among divison pools and probably change ratings a bit. Best rating player (any A) should not be out of question for training - and I'm not picky as I'm pretty much on start of my road.

Do you think it was a mistake to announce something like this without details? What would have been a better option?

I honestly don't think the details will help you, but please surprise me.

Furthermore two seasons in advance without knowing the details is not that far in advance. My time is probably not that different from any other small league team. Out of my top 8 players I only have to Swedes, whereof one is being trained in order to be sold in the near future. In other words I know now that I should probably try to trade almost my entire team within a couple of seasons.

There are several problems with this and I will just mention three (all related).

First, I would guess that there are quite a few managers that just like me look at the trannsfer as something quit booring, but needed. To force people to spend extra time on the transfer market just because they have to adapt to a sudden rule change is not ideal (even though it might be needed in some cases).

Secondly, on long term it means that teams from small countries will have a very limited market to find my ideal players on. This wll have the consequence that time spent on the transfer becomes more important than actual "team building", making the game more HT-like (i.e. more "mechanical" rather than "intellectual").

Finally, a big part of a longterm game like BB is that you build up "relations" to your players. If you are forced to trade players too often this emotional bond to your team will vanish.

It's difficult to say, I'm not sure we have enough information to make that call. Speculation is always likely to be the result from lack of clarity. Is that necessarily damaging or can it even be healthy? Well, it depends...

Honestly, I'm not trying to be funny. Perhaps, given the reaction, you could weigh up the pros and cons of revealing the proposed season 10 changes so that a debate can take place. If you do not want to debate it, you could make a statement anyway (and then batten down the hatches).

But I wouldn't get too worked up about what essentially is two camps with differing views on how the game should develop having a new bone to fight over.

This is a little bit off topic, but it seems like a lot of this debate is coming from speculation about the details of this system. We tried very hard to announce very far in advance that this would be happening in order to minimize the impact on teams who decide to adjust their long-term strategy as a result and in order to minimize the impact on the transfer market.

However, we've also made a number of changes this offseason that we really did want to make sure were given proper attention, and we really did not want to spend a lot of time in what was already going to be a long news post focusing on the details of a system for two seasons from now.

Do you think it was a mistake to announce something like this without details? What would have been a better option?

I am quite surprised at the extent of discussion on this. For 99.9% of teams, it is simply a good thing to know for future development and choices. For Superfly and myself, where the b3 season or pl leagues (still trying to master the princeton offense) is the focus of our season, this is a big change because the rules of the game will now be unequal for us no matter how such a policy is implemented (it is a debate whether the current setup is currently unequal in favour of us). In any case, it is good to allow debate and solicit ideas from those affected (positively or negatively).

i think this is a very healthy discussion (except from the comments people directly aimed at players and their teams and i hope you will deal with that) and yes you should have given a reasoning as to why you want to implement such a drastic change... obviously you realise yourself (as developers) as well that this is a drastic change or else you wouldnt have announced this 2 seasons before implementation.

for some teams, 2 seasons announcement is a long time. for the people that plan long term it isnt. i have made a plan for 4-5-6 seasons in a row. this would really bring me back to zero. i paid alot for my trainees for a reason and i know i never would get that back. but i didnt care because i had no plan to sell them.

most people seem to expect the same thing to happen as what me and them are afraid off. you want to see more players being trained that are from their own country. homegrown... why? what is the idea behind that? it can only because off the NT system. because how more i think about it, i really cant see any other reason to change a system that works for all/most players as it works now. There is only 1 coach playing the NT, I havent applied for it, simply because it is lowest on my priority list, like i am sure it is for 99% off the players.

if my opinion counts. give the details about the changes for season 10 as well. since if i need to change the whole setup off my team, i better change now than to wait for the start or end off season 9...

Would BB also consider giving players "citizenships" to players that have played in a foreign country for at least 2-3 seasons?

These "citizenships" would allow teams to count their foreign players as domestic players if they've played in their country for a minimum period of time and wouldn't penalize teams in smaller countries, that had to build a team of foreign players so that they could compete with the best teams in their country.

Would BB also consider giving players "citizenships" to players that have played in a foreign country for at least 2-3 seasons?

These "citizenships" would allow teams to count their foreign players as domestic players if they've played in their country for a minimum period of time and wouldn't penalize teams in smaller countries, that had to build a team of foreign players so that they could compete with the best teams in their country.

As long as they wouldn't be allowe to play in NT or U21 of their new country/countries...