BuzzerBeater Forums

You compete at the level you're at, and build and move up, compete at that level, build and move up. At some point you either run out of places to move up to or run out of skill to compete at that level, and adjust accordingly.

Since we're nitpicking. Let me rephrase for everyone's benefit: "do you think a user who realises it will take 2 years of tanking (or more if he's competing) is more likely to stick with a new game rather than someone who knows it will take 1 1/2 years or less"?

Two years of tanking to do... what, exactly? I'm baffled as to why there's a presumption that one simply is required to tank the year and a half to two years (putting aside examples of users dumped in the top league of micronations).

80% is just a guess. 50% would be a problem as well, only the scale would be different. Assuming your entire paragraph isn't predicated on rectal activity either , but you do have something constructive to add to the discussion, would you please be kind enough to clarify whether you think waiting 2+ years to have a 20k arena is:
a) a reasonable time
b) incentivises new managers to stick with the game

I don't have a 20k arena now and I'm one of the people who advocates building an arena over buying players. Should I have quit because it's now coming close to four years and I'm still only at 18k?

I think it's unreasonable to expect a 20k arena until you're at a level where you are able to afford to build it and able to take advantage of it. I could actually use more seats but of course I'm a believer in heavy lower tier investment, so that's cost me more and would cost more to finish, so I'm holding off.

Let's just look at what you're asking, but with something different instead of the arena. Let's say:
"would you please be kind enough to clarify whether you think waiting 2+ years to be in the top level in your nation is:
a) a reasonable time
b) incentivises new managers to stick with the game

Now, as a basketball management sim and not a LEGO arena builder sim, you can imagine that this is even a greater concern for user retention.

Of course, with that aside, nobody said you have to tank two years to be competitive and build an arena. You can build and compete, especially when you're in lower leagues. I mean, I have a pretty nice arena, though I won't really add to it unless I promote again. I started out in V, have never hoarded, never made much on the TL, never finished below fifth, and rarely have had long cup runs compared to my level. Perhaps it's just that my definition of competing includes the crazy notion of being able to have good records and even sometimes win leagues without massively outspending the rest of my league (though, funny enough, I think I do have the highest salary in my league at this point in this season). s season).

I have no reason to doubt that those managers who have stayed like you or me have no problem with this issue. What is your point exactly? That if you and I have done it, so everyone else should be able to endure it?

The stuff that's bolded, that's my point. You're claiming that it'll take new users two years of tanking or more if competing, and I'm of the opinion that you're wrong. Now, of course, if your only goal is to get your 20k arena, sure, that may be the fastest way to do so, but if you play a basketball management sim as a basketball management sim, it's possible to be competitive ( * ) , build an effective arena based on your level of success, and do so without having to endure tanking or having to abuse the transfer system.

( * ) - competitive with my bolded definition. If you're insisting that because a new user can't be at the top in five or six seasons like they could in, say, Football Manager, the problem is that you can't have 90% of the users be in the top 10% of teams.


Last edited by GM-hrudey at 11/3/2014 12:44:04 PM

Two years of tanking to do... what, exactly? I'm baffled as to why there's a presumption that one simply is required to tank the year and a half to two years (putting aside examples of users dumped in the top league of micronations).

I see you're not a big fan of answering direct questions.

At any rate, the point was that I assumed that tanking would be the most efficient way to get the ca. $7 million you need to build a very good arena (similar to most D2 teams areound the world), day trading no longer being as viable as before. I mentioned tanking only to to support the fact that you need about 6 seasons to build a similar arena to the teams competing in D2. Now if my reasoning for thinking that tanking is more efficient or if my math is wrong I invite you to correct it.

Let's just look at what you're asking, but with something different instead of the arena. Let's say:
"would you please be kind enough to clarify whether you think waiting 2+ years to be in the top level in your nation is:
a) a reasonable time
b) incentivises new managers to stick with the game

Straw man once again. You seem to be very adept at building arguments that do not exist. I think people are able to understand the difference of having the chance to get there and actually doing it, thanks. The arena is just a mean to level the playing field. I'm afraid I will refrain to answer to further provocative straw man arguments.

The stuff that's bolded, that's my point. You're claiming that it'll take new users two years of tanking or more if competing, and I'm of the opinion that you're wrong

I shall eagerly wait for you to provide evidence that it's possible to build a 14k-4k-500-50 arena in less than 6 seasons without daytrading. Note that this is kind of normal for over half the teams in competitive D2 leagues I've seen (can try and provide actual numbers if you challenge this). If you can prove this we can end this discussion and your method should go straight in a post for new managers so that they all aware and can benefit from it.

Last edited by Lemonshine at 11/3/2014 1:06:57 PM

Two years of tanking to do... what, exactly? I'm baffled as to why there's a presumption that one simply is required to tank the year and a half to two years (putting aside examples of users dumped in the top league of micronations).

I see you're not a big fan of answering direct questions.

If you ask me if the fact that the sky is magenta and that it's raining unicorn turds makes people think it's time to move to another planet, I'd be a bigger fool to answer it than you would be for asking it. Your question was: "do you think a user who realises it will take 2 years of tanking (or more if he's competing) is more likely to stick with a new game rather than someone who knows it will take 1 1/2 years or less"? I categorically reject your premise, and therefore the answer is irrelevant.

At any rate, the point was that I assumed that tanking would be the most efficient way to get the ca. $7 million you need to build a very good arena (similar to most D2 teams areound the world), day trading no longer being as viable as before. I mentioned tanking only to to support the fact that you need about 6 seasons to build a similar arena to the teams competing in D2. Now if my reasoning for thinking that tanking is more efficient or if my math is wrong I invite you to correct it.

If the goal is to build a 20k arena as fast as possible, with all other factors put aside, sure, it's the fastest way. If competing in the game, growing your team for future competition, etc. matter, it's not the best way. But who signs up for a manager game to ... manage?

Let's just look at what you're asking, but with something different instead of the arena. Let's say:
"would you please be kind enough to clarify whether you think waiting 2+ years to be in the top level in your nation is:
a) a reasonable time
b) incentivises new managers to stick with the game

Straw man once again. You seem to be very adept at building arguments that do not exist. I think people are able to understand the difference of having the chance to get there and actually doing it, thanks. The arena is just a mean to level the playing field. I'm afraid I will refrain to answer to further provocative straw man arguments.

I see, again, you're not a big fan of answering direct questions. ;)

It's the same argument, except that of course one makes explicit the assumption that you're competing against people from your league/country and the other ignores that and insteads focusing on "leveling the playing field" as if a user should worry more about what happened 36 months or more ago to teams they're never playing.

You're claiming that it'll take new users two years of tanking or more if competing, and I'm of the opinion that you're wrong

I shall eagerly wait for you to provide evidence that it's possible to build a 14k-4k-500-50 arena in less than 6 seasons without daytrading. Note that this is kind of normal for over half the teams in competitive D2 leagues I've seen (can try and provide actual numbers if you challenge this). If you can prove this we can end this discussion and your method should go straight in a post for new managers so that they all aware and can benefit from it.

Seems like a couple of people have already posted this.

Now, the counterpoint: prove that you have to have a 14k-4k-500-50 arena to be competitive, and that the inability to do so is responsible for even a quarter of the people who leave the game. On the last point, since neither of us have details about why users leave as a general matter, please feel free to cite the people who claim that this needs to be fixed, as compared to the number of posts about how many people think LI was overbalanced or training needs to be fixed or game shape training needs to go away or the blank lineup is overpowered or how GDP is overpowered or the draft needs to be fixed or... well, you get the point.

Last edited by GM-Perpete at 11/3/2014 7:58:41 PM

Ok so we're stuck at 2 years. I think I can get to 19-20k with 6-7k LT in 2 years as well especially if I promote to the EBBL (which nearly happened in my 5th season).

Now, do you think this kind of timeframe reduces user retention or not? And if you think it does, do you think lowering arena seats cost would help keeping more new managers (among other measures affecting training or something else I'm not even considering)?

Now this is a well reasoned counter argument rather than Utopia Ants and flying unicorn turds. I do not and I have never have suggested any drastic change, not for the arena and not for training, although I suspect the flying-unicorn-turd man, will actually argue the opposite based my previous out-of-context or non-existent statements.

If you think user retention is not a priority, then are you also against boosting the number of managers via App or Marketing?

I categorically reject your premise, and therefore the answer is irrelevant.

The premise being? Just wanna make sure we're still on the same planet. As I say blue and you say it's not magenta.

If the goal is to build a 20k arena as fast as possible, with all other factors put aside, sure, it's the fastest way. If competing in the game, growing your team for future competition, etc. matter, it's not the best way. But who signs up for a manager game to ... manage?

Again this is your opinion based and you assume everyone thinks rationally or share your point of view. I'm not sure if you really believe most new users (again I don't mean you and I) are willing to invest 2 years just to get to a point where their revenues are close to those of their opponents. D3 in England has plenty of 20k arena teams and that's the division you start in.

It's the same argument, except that of course one makes explicit the assumption that you're competing against people from your league/country and the other ignores that and insteads focusing on "leveling the playing field" as if a user should worry more about what happened 36 months or more ago to teams they're never playing.

This is again your view of this game (and mine too) and there is no evidence whatsoever that the new managers see the game this way. Perhaps the correct way to address this would be to ask new managers what they believe the worst aspects of their "induction" are and what bothers them the most. So we can stop ranting about opinions and arguing without a shred of evidence.

Now, the counterpoint: prove that you have to have a 14k-4k-500-50 arena to be competitive, and that the inability to do so is responsible for even a quarter of the people who leave the game. On the last point, since neither of us have details about why users leave as a general matter, please feel free to cite the people who claim that this needs to be fixed, as compared to the number of posts about how many people think LI was overbalanced or training needs to be fixed or game shape training needs to go away or the blank lineup is overpowered or how GDP is overpowered or the draft needs to be fixed or... well, you get the point.

Straw man again as of course I've never said that this should be a top priority. My point, so that we're clear once and for all, is that user retention should be combined with bringing in new users via app or marketing. This discussion started in the first thread where someone suggested faster training as a mean to retain more players. I just added that another big barrier was spending a huge amount of cash and time towards the arena. What I got in response here are Utopia ants and flying unicord turds.

At least we seem to agree that nobody here has any evidence to back up his claims except that it does take about 2 years to buld a competitive arena. The correct way to address this would be to ask the new managers what they think. Unless of course you also believe that people who think 2 years are too long shouldn't play this game.

Last edited by Lemonshine at 11/3/2014 6:12:46 PM