BuzzerBeater Forums

Appreciate the response. That is why I tried to refrain from making any blanket statements about what is best, and just kept it to my opinion and experience. The idea of allowing new users some choice about what level league to join sounds like a really good idea, and an easy fix for new users who get turned off by playing vs bots or a new user who gets turned off by jumping right into a league over their head.

Regarding transfer market vs training, I definitely see opinions on all sides. And I might focus more on training down the line just to mix things up, but I have to say that I give the highest marks of the entire game on the transfer market. I am quite pleasantly surprised with how well run, always active and rational bidding and values on players depending on salary, skills, age and how far into the season you decide to buy/sell. And I have yet to see any extreme abnormalities in price which is kind of hard to believe. Again, by far the most impressive part of the game.

That's a good suggestion, ask the new comer where to start. Low league or higher league without bots.

Also, thinking about how to make the draft better and keeping new players on board. How about implementing a rare 17 year old in the draft or giving a 17 year old to new teams. Doesn't have to be Lebron James type of skills but it does give a how extra year to train before age become a factor. Just a thought though.

Possibly sending new members messages about how to train their players with a focus instead of training scrubs for a few weeks before buying a young player that is over priced and not worth the effort to train.

Suggestion A - limit the maximum amount of stamina for older players to a certain rating, with very few of them being able to have more (similar to foul prone players). Or, and this is extreme, implement stamina drops twice per season for older players. Age in both cases is debatable. Maybe game shape pops should also depend on the level of the coach, so that managers who prefer old rosters would have to keep higher level coaches.

Suggestion B - This also addresses the tactics' issue. Make old players, even if they are experienced, less effective when using high paced tactics, but more effective when using slow paced ones. This seems logical to me.
And/or iif high paced tactics are used often, game shape of older players should be limited to a certain amount even when training game shape.

Hopefully the demand for younger players would grow afterwards. While the second suggestion would bring into use more tactics. I feel that tactics are the biggest issue which should be addressed first. Does anyone even use isolation tactics, what are they for anyways?

Very interesting ideas you mentioned there imho. Paul Pierce came to my mind while reading this. Although he was the go to guy in Bosten he definitely lost some steps in the last few years. :)

No doubt. I figured out pretty quickly that spending hundreds of thousands of dollars, year after year, to train a guy was not even close to worth it when I could just go out and spend a few hundred thousand on an already made player. The older players don't drop in skill (or stamina) nearly enough for it balance out the high, high price of training or the inflated prices for younger players. I have only played in the lower divisions though, so maybe that calculation changes in upper leagues, but by the looks of the comments, it doesn't seem like it. Saying all that, I'm not trying to disparage the game because I'm still having a blast working the transfer market.

I agree, the transfer market is very well built. When I first joined I was blown away by the free market aspect of transfers, and for me it is one of the coolest aspects of the game. I will say that I agree with folks' comments that drafting and training seems relatively more expensive than acquiring talent. (I still train because I think it's satisfying that every Fri is like Christmas opening BB to see what pops I got.) But I also think part of the relative 'discount' managers are seeing on acquisitions of talent are because so many managers have left the game in the last couple of years. A userbase of 50k down to the low 30ks means a lot of the talented players of 50k worth of teams is now spread among ~30k of teams. Ie there is relatively more supply of players than demand of players than in even recent years. If the BBs were able to attract lots of new users to the game (say 60k), the demand for already trained players would explode, and acquiring those players off the TL would be relatively more expensive.

So, while I agree with others that have said we should eliminate Free Agents because it artificially increases supply, I would address how many users are playing the game before making any other systematic changes to how much it 'costs' to train players relative to acquiring them. If the userbase swells, the free market will correct and make it relatively less costly to train.

Few words from my side: shorter seasons, more teams to be promoted every season (top eleven promotes the first seven teams every season) a second team for supporter, fancy stuff like clothes, colors, arena view and a bit of promotion can move the numbers back to 50 K.
Adding one more divisional cup can be great.
On the long run some more animation can boost further.

Top eleven is a horrible pay-to-win game. Please don't compare it to buzzerbeater, a fair-play heaven!

It's also chew-and-spit game, a game every day, 28 day season, Buzzerbeater's long seasons are way better. I agree with slight season shortening, maybe 14 to 12 week, but not more! In the same spirit, I agree with adding extra league game per week, but with more games per season, not shorter seasons.

I keep on reading about how people want another game a week or a second team. That is silly. If you want an extra game a week, buy supporter and join a PL....If you want two extra games a week, become a NT/U-21 manager. If you want a third extra game, win your league or cup and make it to the BB3. It is that simple.
Example: In season 23, I had a Monday U-21 game, Tuesday I had a league game, Wednesday I had a BB3 game, Thursday I had a Cup/scrimmage game, Friday I had a World Super League Private league game, Saturday I had a league game....Sunday I rested.
I barely had time for this team let alone another team.
I think the game is good and getting better. No extra games or teams.

But...I think it would be cool if the BB3 were broke into regions....and then have those teams meet.
Like last week in the Toyota cup(World club team championship)....Where you have the winners of each region go on to meet. You could have the top 128 teams from each region(The league winner and cup winner from each country in the region and then how many wild cards would be needed to fill out the 128 teams.) That would make it a 6 week tournament and then the World Club championship would be another 3 weeks. It would be shorter than the current BB3.