BuzzerBeater Forums

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).

Rather, one could think of a drafting market release with a certain potential for smaller nations of tot users.
This would avoid "waste" and would not benefit any club.
But the nations that are part of "nations of .." would still be penalized.

It's not a bad idea that high potential Legends (10+), HoF (10), and MVP (9), even superstars (8), chosen by bot teams go up for sale on the same day of the draft, as free agents. Looking for new opportunities to improve their skills, because they know their potential and want better facilities and coaching staff to develop.

Micro and small nations with more bot teams might have a better chance of finding something on the TL

Best regards!

Dont forget BB-Marin's reply from another thread...

(314977.13)

Why not auto sell the drafters'bot players at 0 price?
In this mode we don't lose good players or nt prospect...

We'll consider this as a valid solution, in case the talent pool reduces a lot. We might not release all draftees this way, maybe a smaller selection (as much as we determine is needed) based equally on skill and a random factor.

It would help too... the only question is will how will the pool of roster be collected and distributed.... Per Country? Globally? or just like the Utopian Double Nationality Rules? or Equal numbers of representatives per Country?

One of the places where BB missed the boat was when they created Utopia in the first place.

In another manager game that I played, you were able to buy 2nd teams in whatever country you wanted. I live in the US, but my preference would be to have a 2nd team in Scotland or Ireland rather than Utopia. I am sure there are other players like me who have an affinity for some of the less represented countries in the game. It would have be a natural way for players to help with NTs.

The problem with Utopia is twofold. As a manager, you start so low, it takes a long time to develop your club. So while you may have a player you want to develop, you probably don't have the facilities to do it. And if you sell the player, you probably won't get as much for him as you would for a US player. And there is no guarantee that the manager who buys that player will do a better job of developing him.

As a result, even though there may be more players available, they will probably be half-assed developed. So it still doesn't help smaller countries that much.

Ultimately, it's an impossible thing to balance. Short of having a World Cup Soccer style approach where someone may be born in one country and play for another because of heritage, I don't see a way to balance this. Unless you want to "naturalize" players (i.e. - a US player becomes a Mexican player after playing in Mexico for X number of seasons), I don't see a way to do it. And that would open a whole different can of worms.

When I first started following Soccer in the late 80s, people joked the FAI stood for "Find Another Irishman". Maybe that's what you need to do

Last edited by Gaillimh at 7/16/2022 11:57:14 PM