BuzzerBeater Forums

I don't know what he meant but I can tell you thins: every single team who has a couple of bots in his league can happily tank till the end of time and never get a boycott. That means all micronation teams, all teams in the lowest level of competition in their nation (which, as you can imagine, are the majority) are completely unaffected.

Bots are the extreme example of differences in strength between nations. Boycott punishes losing, as if losing (and winning games against bots) are an intelligent way to decide who's tanking and who's trying to win but comes up short. In reality the boycott rule ends up:
a) Punishing teams who are trying in very challenging leagues or people who do not manage to compete due to injuries
b) Not punishing tanking teams if they have some bot opponent (because it's almost impossible to lose to a bot)

Last edited by Lemonshine at 3/20/2017 12:13:43 PM

ahah no politic here please :)

The boycott affects all teams which lose all the games in any third of a season. Tankers, who by definition have made a conscious decision to lose, will just make sure they win one game to avoid the boycott, as maximising income is the aim, and not losing.

The only people affected by the boycott are teams that aren't good enough to win a single game.

What's your assessment of the situation in respect of micronations? I'm sure you've discussed this among the staff. What do you expect from it? More teams? Or do you think the userbase in those nations will shrink as a direct result of the change, but you may recover users in the long term?

I think the possibility of some long standing users quitting is very real and in some cases 1 or 2 leaving is a very big deal. South Africa for example has 12 users (it's the largest African nation), say 3 people leave and it's -25%. In fact in total all African nations have 48 users altogether, it can shrink substantially if some people leave which will leave you with a D1 and bot filled D2s.

There lies the other problem all these teams are now competing in D1, what are you going to do in the first season after then merge? Create 4 D1s and then demote 36 teams?

What happens with our old users will depend on how they understand this change. They will have more competitive games each week and will have to face more good teams and play BB in a different way. We hope most of them will have a better experience, but it's clear that not the 100% will be happy with it. On the other hand, we have users from other micronations who would like to be merged as soon as possible and will have to wait.
My hope is that old users realize that there will be more fun for them with the new league and will stay, and that new users will find more fun playing against humans as well and we have a better retention rate there.
About the distribution, as the news say, the best ranked teams will be set in first division, the rest of them in the second one.

Again not my place to suggest this, but honestly you'd be better off setting up 4 or 5 D1s for the first season. The difference in economy between d1 and d2 is pretty high and you may want to avoid people getting allocated to d2 based on their ranking changing right at the end of the season. It makes it very hard for them to plan ahead and also ranking is not a straightforward (it mostly depends on B3 perforrmance and the number of bots in each league....)

No it wasn't the idea. I proposed it to get a more competitive tournament while keeping our domestic championship and identity. As too often those who shout loudest because in larger number have imposed their choice. Finally the decision was taken without the people most directly concerned having been heard..

I hear what you are saying...but I also believe this decision affects more than just teams in Africa. When you play in a small country and only have 1-5 active teams...you can coast by at the lowest possible salary without fear of relegating...maximize $$ more than bigger countries...and it gives a very significant advantage in acquiring players on the Transfer List. In bigger countries, it's the opposite...teams have to overspend to stay afloat, and significantly overspend if they want to compete for a Championship.

Personally, I hope this is just the start...I hope this trial works, and it leads to all micro-nations being merged to create more competitive environments so all leagues are dealing with the same issues and on the same playing field.

I hope they can decide quickly on a simple (and I stress simple) change to help the U21/NTs in those nations, because the national teams do help keeping smaller BB communities together

Last edited by Lemonshine at 3/20/2017 5:21:02 PM

Well, this was announced with an advance of two seasons
Economy will not be a problem for most of those teams, they are well prepared and won't suffer a lot.
Your suggestion won't be bad in a closed league, but I think for new teams entering during the season it will be a nightmare, and the same for teams just created. And for sure more difficult to code which would be a problem as well.
Ranking is for sure not 100% accurate, but the better option. Another one would be that all teams start in 2nd division, but I'm not sure africa teams would prefer it.

Well, this was announced with an advance of two seasons :)

Yes but you missed my point. The point is not that you didn't announce it in advance, the point is that your cut is quite random and depends heavily on luck: luck in the cup draws, luck with the number of bots in each league, luck on the B3 draws for the teams who participate etc. Lots of luck and not necessarily skill is involved in whether you make D1 or you end up in D2.

Those who end in D2 will have to reconfigure their rosters, but unfortunately they won't know until the end of the season. So you have 36 teams several of which will not know whether they will be in D1 or D2 till the very end. It's also very possible that a team ranked 3 or 4 in a nation wins the league but the ranking does not update fast enough. You're gonna put the champion of that nation in D2 while you put some defeated team in D1 because you decided to follow a criteria based on ranking?

I say let them duke it out and create a D2 with bots (and no promotions) for the new managers who will eventually start playing that season. I'd suggest to put all the new managers in the same league as well.

Now if you put all existing managers in D1 leagues they will know as the season progress whether they will be able to make it or not because only the top 16 teams will go on to remain in D1 in S40. There is no uncertainty, the best 16 will be in D1 the following season (not just those whose ranking is better but the actual top teams) and everyone will be able to see clearly at any point during the season whether they can clinch one of the spots or not. Also they can start preparing when they see they are unlikely to make the cut (as opposed as very late in the season if it was based on luck).

This is a fairer system. It's like a reverse Utopia system. All these teams would have had D1 revenues without the merge, there is no reason not to select the best 16 for the top league objectively.

Your suggestion won't be bad in a closed league, but I think for new teams entering during the season it will be a nightmare, and the same for teams just created.

False problem. It's much better that you put new managers directly in D2 with bots. Then in S40 you have D1 with the top 16 and a D2 which is half human, half bot and you're done.

And for sure more difficult to code which would be a problem as well.

Another false problem. The new league will need coding whatever you do. So you can do the same that was done for nearly 100 leagues in Utopia.

Another one would be that all teams start in 2nd division, but I'm not sure africa teams would prefer it.

This is not fair: you'd kill their economy and many will have to sell players. Besides if you can do 4 D2s then you can do 4 D1s as well (and 4 D2s for bots and new users).


Do what you want but I guarantee that if you ask the managers involved, my proposal will be a lot more popular than the alternatives, both because less changes for them are required and it is based on merit.

Last edited by Lemonshine at 3/20/2017 6:16:47 PM

I understand your concerns about fairness, but I don't understand your concerns about economy.
Most of the teams in those nations will still have profit if they are set in D2 with their current rosters, economy is not a problem for them.
The biggest problem is that some teams will have to wait to know where they are going to play, as you pointed out. But it's not that different from teams who play the third PO game.
And let's be honest, it's impossible to do a merging without any kind of damage or annoyance. The goal is to reduce them as much as possible.