BuzzerBeater Forums

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.

I don't think 90% of users are fighting over kids to make sure they in end up in their country. Imagine the uk merged and scottish teams tank in all divisions, get all the hall of famers. Sounds fair for the english teams to just play perennial allstars for the seniors?

The draft will need to be adjusted of course, but that is a problem as a nation not individually. Each of you people in micronations individually can get MUCH better draftees on average than users who are in league with more human users.

So I agree that as a nation it's not good it would starve micronations of trainable players even more than now. Individually you are basically just get the same deal everyone else has.

Besides, in you example the Scots would get shafted because they would be the minority and there would be a much higher chance that some English manager tanks for picks. So I think you have that reversed.

It could be argued that the draft itself should be revamped for this merged region (and others in the future). Make the draft in the merged African region 5 rounds instead of three to make up for the potential lower amount of players being generated of each nation. Otherwise the NT's will eventually dry up.

Going even further, without being able to train more players at full speed, these NT's will be starved for players down the road. This would be a good way to roll-out a revamped training system that adds the ability for teams in this region (and others merged in the future) to train more players at full speed.

I reallly like and want the nicknames. Why you talk for everybody? Yes, the fan survey issue is pretty annoying and it must be the priority.


But You DON'T have the power for think or give an opinion for me

This is a business and they need to add things to make people stay.
Do you really think that any non supporter will buy supporter just for the nicknames?
Do you think adding nicknames is going to stop a user who is on the fence from quitting the game?
Do you think that anything they added or adjusted will keep new users from quitting the game?
That are the things the BBs need to ask themselves when adding content.
I think the answer to all three of these questions in NO.

You're right. The answers are NO, but it doesn't mean that you can say that NOBODY care this particular change. I really like this feature.

OK....I will correct myself and say....lots of people probably don't care about nicknames.

Mate I understand what you're saying but now imagine there are twice as many people gunning for picks...that's the reality in many leagues filled with humans and in theose leagues if you're in the playoffs it means 10th,12th pick not only behind those who tank but also several others. Individually each manager in a bot league is much better off in the draft.

Then of course I completely agree that you guys effectively get your NT and U21 players from 1 draft per season, while Spain has probably over 100. In the past this situation wasnt so bad because you had probably 5-21 drafts and were able to get enough valuable players as a nation.

I hope they will address this with a flat boost like I proposed earlier: select 2-3 bot drafts at random and allow someone to elect 4-5 players from those drafts to save each season. These players will then hit free agency. This is largely irrelevant for big nations but it may be vital for smaller nations. You can also play with this idea further tbh: instead of revealing the skills of the players maybe allocate a certain amount of scouting points by nation instead and give more to smaller nations (this would be effectively like giving the NT/U21 the ability to draft 4 players to free agency based on a fixed amount of scouting points).

I completely agree with you that micros will disappear without some help for the U21 and NT which is a very important part for a local community in BB.



Last edited by Lemonshine at 3/21/2017 6:09:24 AM

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.

Those who are in the relegation are in the bottom half of their league, they know they can demote but it's only 1/4 of the league. Here 3/4 of the managers will be assigned to D2 automatically and with a criteria which is not entirely based on merit....

The goal is to reduce them as much as possible.

Then merge first and select top 16 after and not vice versa.

If you're confident your idea causes less inconvenience open a discussion just for African managers with the different options and see what they think. If you're really looking to reduce damage and annoyance, it seems very reasonable to ask them directly.



Last edited by Lemonshine at 3/21/2017 6:57:12 AM

As I've told you, your idea will mean more coding. You said it was false, but probably because you haven't thought a lot about that.
And about polls, most of the times they are tricky if you don't do them in a good way. This is not so easy as just put some options and let people vote. And I guess that when you run a company or a game like this, you have to choose carefully which decisions should follow this system.
BB's policy hasn't gone for polls a lot, I don't know if they will decide to change this policy in this particular case.