BuzzerBeater Forums

I'm with you on this one. Everyone should have a youth team, and you should be able to have players starting from, let's say, 16 year old. It should be free for all, and you should be able to train your youth in the same way you train main team. starting from 18 years you can promote your guys or dump them. You would have one game per week.
They compete in a separate league independent of main team. There should be some disadvantage like hidden potential or something. And maybe limit the players that you can promote per season. just my two cents

EDIT: draft and youth team should coexist, just like real life.

Last edited by Boston Celts at 11/13/2017 10:47:14 AM

My thoughts exactly ^_^

Hey Jerunderbar,

Long time no talk. I'll cut the pleasantries short. I have mixed oppinions off your idea and i'll state them below

why 'im against the idea:
1) some managers don't like to train. They rarely have 'competitive players '(players who play game minutes in Championship games) that are below the age of 21 on their rosters. They just prefer not to waste cash in training and play for championships time after time. It's a valid strategy in the game. With your idea, you'd force them into training or picking up younger sub 22y old players. Assuming they won't want to train, you'll be wasting the talent of those players or forcing the team into investing in something they don't really want to. So you'd have to give managers the option to opt into this competition

2) you will basically require 2x the current server space for the extra amount of competitions that is being held. That means that BB has to have the finances to invest for that room. The alternative is to make it a supporter feature, but then you are turning it into a Pay to Win game, which will lose you a bunch of users!

Why i'd see some merit in this suggestion
1) teams in the top divisions have a hard time training players to their specific needs. by doing this, you could tailor a player to your team needs, which would be a huge positive.


Now to reply for the arguements you've made:

1. New managers will be able to compete sooner;

The problem is that BB is such a complicated game and that the game manual is hopelessly outdated. The tutorial helps a bitt, but it's still not enough. New managers don't understand how everything works and with a lack of information and communication within the communities, it means that they can't find the new information, thus don't understand certain game results and quit out of frustration. BB is a complex game. it's not just something you start and improve with right away.

2. Existing managers can realize their ideas about players/teams much more easily;

valid argument. However, limiting such a thing to a U21 competition is wrong. To test real idea's, you'd need to train them completely to a lvl where they could really compete. For that to happen, you'd need a test environment. And currently there are enough problems within the game that need more urgent fixing (competition, game manual update, ...) I'm going to be making a couple of forum posts in the near futur about all those issues.

3. Training for U21 (and both training and U21 in general) will become much more appealing;

There are other ways to make this more interesting that require less coding. The problem right now is that the U21 & NT championships are boring for 70% of the teams. 10% knows they will qualify for future rounds. 60% knows they have no chance. So it's the remaining 30% that are fighting over scraps, only to be steamrolled by the monster teams who saved enthusiasm untill the very end... So there is need for a U21/NT reformation. i've made such a suggestion in the U21/NT fora. It gathered some steam, but nothing was done with it. So while i argee that Training needs to be made more appealing, there are easiers ways to accomplish this without putting such a financial strain on BB (see earlier)

4. Player market improves because of more training;

not really. you'll flood the market with more players, meaning you'll kill the medium lvl transactions. however the high end talent will still remain as expensive as before. the difference between good and great will just be that you need to pay considerably less for good because there will be more of it available. This all goes back to Supply and Demand, which are basic economic principles. This will hurt the teams who train general good players and don't want to train them to the excellent lvl (because they can't afford it economically or because they don't want to go the distance.)

5. Feedback on changes in the Game Engine, skills and salary will be much faster.

if you really want to run this, you need to get a test environment. BB used to have them at some stage (no clue if it still exists or not). But again, there are more pressing issues in my oppinion.

As a disclaimer, none of the arguements that i've made are ment derogatory. Should you find any of the stuff written insulting, mail me along with an explanation why you find it derogatory & i'll see how i can rephrase it.

kind regards

Athrun

Hi AthrunZala,

Thank you for taking the time to give feedback. I emphasize that this is in no way a finished idea, but it was intented to share a concept for all those interested, in order to work out a way to realize the concept together. As I said I see multiple ways to realize the concept and I hope together we can figure out the best way to do so that tackles all concerns mentioned by you and others.

For example, I mentioned the possibility to work this out as a private league so it's optional (managers aren't forced to do something they don't like) and extra server capacity isn't needed too much.

As for the arguments:

1) While complexity is also a hurdle for new managers, having a U21 competition does get them to compete sooner. Because even without complexity, it takes more time to acquire money for or train top players than it does for U21 players. Of course, new managers need to figure out the complex game in order to be good even at the U21 level, but they can compete sooner.

2) Of course a whole test environment or faster trainer would be better for realizing new ideas, but as you mention that takes a lot more to implement. I think experimenting at the U21 level is helpful already, as it's a much smaller step than a full size experiment. My point is to shorter the experimentation cycle to get feedback faster, not necessarily a 100% representation of the real thing.

3) I think that if every country has a larger U21 player pool, differences will be smaller (benefit of more players is relatively bigger for smaller countries than for bigger countries that already have a large pool). Of course it won't fix everything, but I do think it's a positive. It still needs to be worked out practically but that's the point of this thread.

4) I don't think it will necessarily hurt the market. You focus on the increased supply, but there will also be increased demand by the teams that don't like to train but still want to compete (and thus increase demand without increasing supply). Also, I thought the current state is one with more demand than supply, so even if supply increases it would be a good thing.

5) Same as 2), I think with a small investment a relatively big benefit on this subject can be achieved. Experimenting on a small (U21) level gives a good idea already without the need of a seperate test envorionment for full sized experiments.

Don't worry, none of your comments are derogative!