BuzzerBeater Forums

I still think that you are misidentifying the problem, that the idea of "shortage of players" is shortsighted.

While I think it's important that everyone's opinion is heard, statements like yours make me sick. I've been here much longer and have observed many a thing over the years and I don't think you are equipped with the experience to accurately make that statement. For example, you don't know what the state of BuzzerBeater was before the creation of Utopia so you aren't able to draw on observations from that.

Even back in the day when I started, there were old managers with old money from a much different economy and they all had monster arenas. Building your arena up was just part of the journey as a new manager because other users playing the game longer had a head start on you. The big difference back then was that I was still able to acquire players and improve my team to close the competitive gap. Today this is not possible because the supply of players is so low, that only established players with more money and resources are able to obtain said players.

There will always be a competitive gap between new mangers and veterans. Users that have played longer should be farther ahead competitively speaking. However, in today's economy and player market, this gap is much bigger and exacerbated by the fact that we don't have enough skilled players to go around. Therefore, the problem you describe is a symptom of the "shortage of players" Lemonshine has described. Address the player shortage and the competitive gap will lessen between new mangers and veteran managers.

How can you deny that there's a shortage of players? Just look at the prices. D1 backup players are going for millions. That's all the proof I need.

Anyone here can look at the length of your tenure as a manager and see that you have no idea what you're talking about.

This is just false. Take a look at the market. There are players at all prices. Most teams pay the most salaries they can before paying the overextending tax. Or even pay the tax. There is no such "shortage of players"

What are you comparing too? Take a look at the market now and when? Perhaps that time when you weren't a manager 4 seasons ago? You literally have no data points to make these wild conjectures on. I have 25 seasons under my belt and have seen how the market has changed over time. You have not and you need to stop discrediting people who have.

From this point onward, I will not argue with your ignorance because you're are too foolish to know you're ignorant.

Last edited by Procta at 8/10/2017 6:00:33 PM

What happens if you announce that next season training will be quicker?
Teams with the most money (old teams) will buy the best trainees and the best trainers!

Players they can't train? doesn't sound like a good investment!

in a couple of seasons players with the same skills will be cheaper than now and easier to get for new teams. But when the overall skill average increases those same skills will not be good enough for Divison 2 anymore but maybe only for Division 3. Again, no effect for new teams to catch up quicker. They have better players but everyone else has too, so the gap is the same.

You're wrong. We are talking about average player skill levels, not the maximum skill level. The maximum limit is always the same and it's determined by potential, so what would happen with more training is that you would have more people closer to that maximum. Without changing the number of users, instead of having 3 players with 150+ TSP maybe you will have 5, instead of 40 with 140+ TSP you will have 50 and so on all the way down. You will not be able to make players with 160 TSP, you won't be making Superstar potential with 140 etc.

So when something like this happens you are in the situation where we were 15 seasons ago (or hopefully somewhere in the middle). Good players for any salary level are more affordable, people can equip themselves to have a fighting chance and then it becomes a matter of managing GS, Enth and tactics. You cannot compete if you don't have the players and one thing is competing with a 350k payroll vs 400k (where the 400k also has more TSP per 1k salary) and another is competing with a 250k payroll vs 400k.

Maybe a better way to do it is to change the draft, so that instead of only raw 18-19yo players, there are also 22-23yo who are already good enough to play in lower leagues but have low potential, so that they won't be interesting as trainess for higher divison teams.

The problem I see with this is that you can only make random players with each skill capped at a certain level. It would be best if each draftee who is 19yo or older, was created as 18yo and then had some training simulated instead, based on an appropriate list of training sessions. Unfortunately I don't think this is feasible as it would add too much load on the system.

Also before someone starts saying that 15 seasons ago there was no incentive to train, I would like to remind everyone that there were 2 school of thoughts on how to address the problem:
1) Give some sweeteners to people training (better performance of the players while playing for the teams who trained them, economic boons through lower salary, cheaper trainers or whatever)
2) Make it more economically viable, by making all players more expensive so that those who train can make a profit

2) was the BBs choice and it was done through cutting free agency, standing pat when Utopia started and introducing all sorts of limitations to trading.

So even if players did cost less, there are several options to make training appealing and economically viable which do not require inflating the whole transfer market.

Last edited by Lemonshine at 8/10/2017 7:07:49 PM

Wow Falke, wake up!!! I used 150 and 140 to explain a point that is applicable to ANY skill level. I thought I explicitly clarified that the same reasoning apply down to lower levels. Perhaps the sequence 150>140>lower levels wasn't clear enough?

You cannot improve a player endlessly, so if training gets faster you will have more players for any given TSP level. That's how the average skill level increases. That means players will cost less. And it will also mean more teams will have those players. Come on. You were around before Utopia, weren't you? If so, you should know you could buy easily a team to compete. I bought a team who got me in the playoffs in the first season against 13 human managers with 300k. The problem back then was to keep the payroll in check and you could easily buy titles after tanking, even at the B3 level. That was an extreme environment too (incidentally now would be almost impossible to buy B3 titles like that, with all the other limitations and taxes).

The economy stays the same, gates stay the same, everything stays the same but you have more players and they are cheaper. How do you not understand that SOMEBODY will buy those extra players and it will certainly not be the teams who already have them today? Isn't it obvious?

The guys who already have top players for their division (so very high TSP given a salary level) will face 2 choices: increase payroll or do nothing. These people CANNOT improve their team in any meaningful way other than buying players with higher salary, because they already have salary efficient rosters, close to the best they can get given salary and cap constraints (or close to the best)....please, I'm trying to be nice here, stop being stubborn and actually think about it, before writing.

Last edited by Lemonshine at 8/11/2017 5:37:48 AM