BuzzerBeater Forums

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

True but either way it would allow for more personalisation. In any case, my preference would be to boost training for a number of weeks for 6 players.

I just took the survey, but now I remember a criticism I had since I have been playing this game and something I forgot to add: the forums suck (first and foremost the interface), they are hard to search, the design is not only old but also not user friendly, can't embed stuff etc. The forums experience is so outdated that must look like a steam train or a propeller airplane to millennials. Other ways for people to interact with each other in the era of social media are also lacking. You really shouldn't have a IRC chat only for games and only directly under the viewer, so that if you change page it logs you out. It's 2020 folks.

Last edited by Lemonshine at 8/15/2020 2:05:16 PM