BuzzerBeater Forums

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.

Nah more cash isn't the solution for new teams. These users are more likely to waste money on those crappy players that Darkonza and others try to flip at the beginning of each season. If you give them money there is no reason they should spend it well or wisely, which means they will just quit once they realised they made a mistake and have no way to recover.

Instead of giving more cash you can either apply discounts or bonuses for stuff you want to push (like arena seats or training), in a similar way to the fact you apply no salary floor for a number of weeks (which is already designed to encourage them not to buy recklessly and to give them a lot more money than other managers).

What you say only affects by and large D1 teams and B3 teams and besides 3 games per week requires more strategy for sure which is a good thing.

Think about what happens with your average D1 team now and what would happen with 3 games.
Now: not many teams mix it up trying to win all games when the cup game is against a similar team. It's risky and requires very good understanding of the relative strength of the opponents, plus it may require gambling on tactics and GDP. Most teams will use a safer, more boring, strategy: they will play their obvious starters in 2 games per week, often praying that they get garbage time in one of them. When you have a tough cup match up, you will throw one game (either league or cup). Typically teams will try to win a home game and probably the cup game (unless it's a lost cause). Top teams may have to sacrifice a couple of league games to go deep in the cup.
Your proposal: now you have 3 games and will have to make a choice: either go all out in 2 of the 3 (still giving priority to home games) or mix it up and try to win all 3. Top heavy teams like B3 teams cannot win 3 games in a week regularly, that would wreck their GS and, of course, now they would be losing league games that count for playoffs seeding. A 14-8 or 15-7 record may not be enough to have HCA in the playoffs against deeper and less top heavy teams that can win all 3 games in some weeks, but not necessarily because everyone would have a hard time winning 3 games per week. 22-0 seasons may become a feat for bot leagues. However, while at present the more balanced (and usually cheaper) team has no chance, with your proposal and some shrewd management they might if they get HCA in the playoffs.

So by all means this would not stop top heavy teams, but it would hurt their playoff positioning and PD compared to now. Of course, they may still win even without HCA, but it will not be handed to them on a silver platter as it is now.

The Cup should have the money for winning reduced, since you are removing it from the strategic side of things (people can play their best lineup without worries, other than injuries). Also I would remove the exception for past winners to participate in the B3 with a WR of 1000 or under since it could create a situation where a handful of managers completely disregard the home league in favour of the B3 (in the sense they may keep a very top heavy team like they have now while other managers have to get more depth, because they still have to win the league and qualify). I would also remove qualification to the B3 by winning the cup or tie winning the cup to making the Finals or conference final in the league, again to prevent distortion where people focus on getting in the B3 through the cup and not the league as it should be.

The real problem in your proposal is training actually, because many people use the cup or scrimmage to train their weakest trainees. Not having easy or meaningless games hurt trainers more than top heavy teams. It wouldn't be bad if training was modified to include minutes from the cup games and scrimmages on wednesdays, but keeping the numerical limits. You'd get 4 games to reach 144 minutes for 3 trainees or 288 for 6 and the 3 players (or 6) with the most minutes at the training position or those specifically selected will get trained. This will allow teams in D1 and D2 to continue training and give everyone more flexibility.

Last edited by Lemonshine at 8/15/2020 8:48:36 AM

Alternatively just give a number of points per player and allow new users to spend them on skills

a new player would have no idea how to allocate those points


Last edited by mark_lenders at 8/15/2020 11:52:54 AM