BuzzerBeater Forums

First thing - give new users better players. The ones new users get now are absolute trash. Just by giving them better players would speed up much the process of building competitive team. Other alternatives are bigger arena and more cash.

I've always been a supporter of giving bigger arenas or reducing the cost. When I joined the starting arena was much smaller than now, but yeah they could improve it a little more.

More cash...not sure about that one, a larger arena will already bring in more cash and it's wise to refrain from doing big changes to the economy.

Regarding players: it's difficult to create better starting players without overshooting the change (i.e. say new players can have higher max skills, what happens when the best possible starting player is born). It's more sensible to give a bonus to training to players in new teams for a number of weeks (for the sake of argument let's say 6 weeks): say you double the effect of the training (or more), disable single position training (so you don't overshoot and make sure several players are trained) AND calculate training for all players in new teams as if they were 18yo irrespective of age. Alternatively just give a number of points per player and allow new users to spend them on skills. I like the training bonus suggestion better as training is integral to the game and is more conducive to learning the game and user retention.

Last edited by Lemonshine at 8/14/2020 2:22:39 PM

I agree with Joemaverick's suggestion to increase the overall pace of the game. It's good as it doesn't change the structure, but it would allow us to play 5 seasons in a year instead of 3. Training would have to be adjusted to account for the loss of 4 weeks per season, but that should also be an easy change: just multiply it by a 1.4 factor.

Formats for tournaments can be revised and maybe 11 weeks works better, but ultimately that hardly matters as the bread and butter of this game is the league system. Some tournament games could also be played on a Sunday if the number of rounds is too high for some nations, like the Finals tiebreaker. In his suggestion the Tournament has no bearing on GS and Enth, so it doesn't matter if games are played on Wednesday or Sunday.

I'm fine with the current schedule, but I can see the appeal for new users who are used to a different kind of pace in gaming.

Besides this is an easily reversible change, the problem, of course, is the amount of work to implement the change.


Oh and the point that Joemaverick made about an adaptive website and a working viewer for mobile devices is basic common sense. Always was and always will be. I'm not an expert but I don't believe it would take a massive amount of work to someone who knows what he's doing. Just get someone to do this while Marin works on the back end.

Last edited by Lemonshine at 8/14/2020 2:37:36 PM

First thing - give new users better players. The ones new users get now are absolute trash.

if i were starting right now with a new team, i'd want this the most

make it a function of age, to avoid creating 18yo monsters, and set a low TSP limit so that those players will still be bad players - but at least they'll be usable

If you read his suggestions, the major thing that would change is that you have Wednesday games for a number of weeks (as long as you are still in the Tournament). If you take Utopia (where bots are reduced) as an example, many people do have to schedule scrimmages in the second or third week, because they are already out of the tournament. With his proposal you do away with scrimmages (and the associated grind to find an opponent if you're not supporter) and everyone has at least 3 competitive games per week, just like we have now as long as we're in the cup.

You can leave scrimmages on a Wednesday for those who are out of the cup on a voluntary basis: they would become sort of private league games, meaningless other than for testing tactics and other stuff. Most people do scrimmages for training purposes and minute management at the moment, so I don't expect a lot of people to do it on an optional basis.

Best of all, because everyone has 3 competitive games teams of 6-7 players with 9-10 ST plus scrubs will be given a hit, probably not enough to knock it off completely, but it would definitely be harder to manage top heavy and unbalanced rosters. Maybe it would lead to a revival of GS training in all its glory.

Last edited by Lemonshine at 8/14/2020 3:12:59 PM

money-wise it would inflate the economy for some time (you have the same income but 4 fewer weeks of costs) which may present some balancing issues. And this would be compounded by the inflation caused by new managers coming in (assuming the app brings new managers). We know inflation has created problems in the past, but we also know that inflation decreases the relative cost all fixed expenses in the game (like arena seats, training staff, various arena upgrades). Inflation in the game essentially impacts fees for players and staff.

If that's the direction of travel and people think the economy is fine as it is, then it may be worth correcting the amount of gate receipts to bring it in line with 10 weeks worth of costs instead of 14.

I want to mention another advantage: it should be possible to guarantee that everyone has between 1 and 2 home games per week, thus solving some of the weird scheduling situation where you have no income in some weeks and sometimes double income in others. There will still be schedules that are better than others but at least you always get something.

Last edited by Lemonshine at 8/14/2020 5:26:04 PM

Regarding new users, raising the initial budget will help a lot. I'd even go further and start a new club from scratch, i.e. no players and no arena, but with significantly higher cash to allow to build an appropriate arena and start with either good players or good trainees. Anyway, it will be up to decision of a new user how he'd like to start with his team, where to invest more (arena, quality players or good trainees) quiet a challenge for a new user.