BuzzerBeater Forums

2) is it necessairy to tackle a current problem and can it achieve this without to many negative side effects

I assume you've sent this to the BBs with regards to the promotion changes.

In fact you could send them this quote as well.

1) does it benefit all of the community (or at the very least doesn't impact people in a negative way)

And this one which also applies to the promotion change (and the consequent deluge of bonus money.

This is a horrible idea, beucase you haven't thought through the effects it would have on your teams nor on the teams of the other people in the community

From next season onwards, with the influx of bonus money (2 billion a year as a rough guess), most teams will be looking to spend it on a reducing stock of players. Its going to be wrecked in the opposite direction.

And we'v ( 3 users) have managed to highjack a thread!

As for the promotion: it answers question 2: the tanking/money hoarding issue. BB's trying to force a more competitive environment after what they consider to be a succesfull testing period in utopia (these are my assumptions)

a more competitive environment benefits all users. and it will tackle the money hoarding problem. So it's a resounding yes on the second question.

Does it impact users negatively? 2 more teams get dropped down and get replaced by 2 other teams. means chances of demotion & promotion increase equally. Hence, i don't see that as a bad thing.

As for the promotion bonus: not sure where your 2M number is comming from. all i find in manuals is 1.5M for the top divisions. i wouldn't be surprized if it increased tho. more competition to avoid direct relegation, means more spending on players. Market will be higher next season, but once the cash changes hands, it trickles down and eventually gets distributated fairly even (if you want an example from that, i'd be happy to provide one.) Altho i'm not excluding that i might have misunderstood your last alinea

If I said 2 million, I mistyped. Its 2 billion. The promotion bonuses in each division and each country will add up to 2 billion EVERY SEASON into the economy. That's what I believe is bad for BB. (My only prerogative. I believe its neutral for my team, except in the economic regard that its harmful for me as it is for everyone.

By the way, thanks for actually trying to answer on the promotion issue. I've asked the question many times, politely I might add and not received a satisfactory response.

Last edited by Gully Foyle at 1/13/2017 9:14:19 AM

If I said 2 million, I mistyped. Its 2 billion. The promotion bonuses in each division and each country will add up to 2 billion EVERY SEASON into the economy. That's what I believe is bad for BB. (My only prerogative. I believe its neutral for my team, except in the economic regard that its harmful for me as it is for everyone..

That 2 Billion is needed for the teams who go up a division so that they can buy a player to strengthen their squads to survive in the next league. It's also what the demoting teams lose in value (less merchandise/TV rights/garena income for them). So in the end, it balances eachother out. might not balance eachother out a 100%, but it's a balancing effort & one that the BB's consider to be a fair one!

you going to tell me that without that promotion cash, you would have survived in II when you promoted? and in the EBBL when you promoted the first time? don't kid yourself. For most teams, they have to go back and forth atleast twice, if not more, before they have sufficient cash to be able to strengthen their squads. you can avoid doing such a thing untill you get in II ( for some larger nations, it's III). after that, it becomes a lot harder. Teams that go up and stay up from the first time, are the exception!

I don't like adding any more cash to the game than you do. But that is a necessairy injection to guarantee that those who promote a division also have the chance to stay there!

So it's my belief that in the end, it more or less balances eachother out. If you are talking about the cash hoarded, then that is because teams decided not to play at optimum strength for a while (thus defeating the purpose & spirit that is behind this game!) But that is a discussion for another topic. If you really want to discuss that, open a topic in the global forum, send me a mail and we'll continue this conversation (i'll post a link to the topic here should u still want to do it. However, that chatter belongs in the Global forum part, not the suggestions forum part!). Or rather, just bring it up next time you are in the chat! B)

we can agree that unretiring players is a good idea ;)

we all want Joe Bronson back!

@ SherlockH: Let me remind you that posting responses such as this one are considered to be spam. It hold of no reference at all to this topic. I already know that you've had some warnings in the past, so i'll be polite here. Unless you have relevant information to post concerning this topic (Or to discuss a topic breached as to why unretiring players is good or bad, preferably with a well worked out example) then i'd request that you refrain from spamming the topic.




Now the topic was unretiring players: some points were made against unretiring players. I'd love to hear from the users why you'd consider this to be a good idea. I'm still waiting for managers to give me good arguements to prove me that unretiring players is a good idea!

I hope that I can convince you that I put a lot of thought in this suggestion.

I understand the danger of too much of a price drop, and that is why I stated that some instead of all players should unretire. For an extreme case, I don't think unretiring a single player per season would affect the prices much right? I made the conditions for unretirement vague since I believe the BB's are the ones who are able to choose the best number of players to unretire to keep prices at a manageable level. Maybe some A-tier players can also be unretired.

Managing the number of unretired players will also help in maintaining the value of trained players. In this case, I would also like to include the usual suggestion that I see in the forums which is to increase the training speed. Even something like 0.1% (0,1%) per season will do since one you stop training, you will be behind a manager who trains with a faster training speed.

As one of the managers who was able to hoard assets before the inflation, I think that this idea benefits the whole of BB more than me. In general, I think suggestions do not benefit a single manager since they are applied to everyone.

Aside from this, lower prices gives more player movement. Acquiring new players give a better experience for me. I would like to see how they would perform, and it also gives me a better chance to compete.

Although recent rules (increased salary floor and boycott) are intended to promote competition, I think that it only forces some teams to be mediocre for a longer time. This makes the user experience poorer. Besides, I think users prefer it if something is given to them (better draft, increased training) rather than if something is taken from them (cheap players, income lost due to boycott). Like if the boycott rules were there since the game was created, there won't be that much reaction in the forums compared to now. This suggestion is aimed to give something to the players and with the right balance, would not negatively impact people.

To end, while I don't think that this suggestion is necessary, it would still improve the experience of the older users. It is just a little annoying that the longer I play the game, the more restricted it feels.

TLDR:

1) does it benefit all of the community (or at the very least doesn't impact people in a negative way)

Yes. Price reduction can be managed by limiting the number of unretired players.

is it necessairy to tackle a current problem and can it achieve this without to many negative side effects

It is not necessary, but I believe it will give a better experience for older users.

Can it be done from an IT point of view (does tax the servers to much, isn't to complex to code, ...)

I don't know.

Assuming i'd be willing to go with your idea (i see 2 valid points, but unretiring one player always means it directly impacts the active managers. yet assuming the impact could be minimiaze. What selection criteria would you suggest to determine if a player should be unretired?

Managing the number of unretired players will also help in maintaining the value of trained players. In this case, I would also like to include the usual suggestion that I see in the forums which is to increase the training speed. Even something like 0.1% (0,1%) per season will do since one you stop training, you will be behind a manager who trains with a faster training speed.

Also, help me out here. 0.1% is trainingspeed * 0.001. i reckon you mean a 10% increase in speed ( trainingspeed *0.1). But am i to understand that you want to make up for the loss of value from unretiring players by increasing training speeds? what happens to the player who were trained 100% till the age of 28, after which it isn't considered to be beneficial to continue training? You would then be negatively impacting those players.

I'm pleased that some thought went into this part of the post. However, by increasing the training speed, you'd just shifting the negative impact from one group of players to another (and increasing training speed would be a larger negative impact, since i reckon that 60 to 70% of the players remain on a team each season. That means that you'd be substracting 60 to 70% of the value of those players... Not sure how managers would feel about that. i reckon the outcry will be much larger than before.

Player movement would be a fun concept, should there be some kind of chemistry build up in teams. However, player movement bring day trading with it, a concept to which the BB's have gone great length to stop it. So how would you like more player movement, with current rules in place (poor GS after a trade, ...)

Although recent rules (increased salary floor and boycott) are intended to promote competition, I think that it only forces some teams to be mediocre for a longer time.

i disagree with this statement. the increased floor and boycot will force teams to spend cash in other to avoid the boycot. Hence, we are talking about more competitiveness. if your direct opponent decides to spend cash in order to avoid a boycot (thus becoming better) then you'll have to follow that example lest you want to be the losing team getting the boycot. The one downside tho is that teams who got promoted because their opponents in the PO's had 2 or 3 injuries and thus couldn't field their best team, generally end up in a higher division with a way to weak roster. They'll be on the receiving end of the boycot ( something for which they don't have the funds to turn it around...) But i believe such teams to be a very small minority, and the trade off would be acceptable to me.

I think users prefer it if something is given to them (better draft, increased training) rather than if something is taken from them (cheap players, income lost due to boycott). Like if the boycott rules were there since the game was created, there won't be that much reaction in the forums compared to now.

The boycott rules were created as a result of teams continuing to tank, despite the salary floors. They just were tanking longer since they couldn't tank as much as before...

The boycott rule would get a resounding yes on the question if it was necessairy to tackle a current problem and can it achieve this without to many negative side effects (as mentioned, the only negative side effect is for the teams who get promoted but aren't the strongest ones in their conference).

I'll agree that it's always preferable to give more than to take away. However, the alternative would have been to give all the none tanking teams a little Christmas bonus of 10M, so that they could go out nd buy players to be more competitive, forcing the other teams to follow that trend (or to demote). however, such a rule would have to be implemented all the time and would increase the money in the game, futher decreasing the value of B- & C-tier players (and maybe increasing the A-tier players).

So again, i'm not sold on the idea. Formulate some criteria & maybe with some tweaks it might work. just remember, the harder the algorithm you use to select the players that are going to be unretired, the more processing power it will need from the servers. So it has to be relatively basic, yet meet your goals.

Now you are backing your suggestion up with your ideas. i'm still not convinced that the positive outweight the negative, but atleast there are some pro arguments to be made.

That 2 Billion is needed for the teams who go up a division so that they can buy a player to strengthen their squads to survive in the next league.

The current promotion bonus won't take you far, a monkey with only half a brain can see this. A quality player for DIV I costs you more then double the promotion bonus. Flooding the economy with Utopia money was the first mistake and we have to live with the aftermath now.

That 2 Billion is needed for the teams who go up a division so that they can buy a player to strengthen their squads to survive in the next league. It's also what the demoting teams lose in value (less merchandise/TV rights/garena income for them). So in the end, it balances eachother out. might not balance eachother out a 100%, but it's a balancing effort & one that the BB's consider to be a fair one!

Again, thanks for finally giving us some idea of what the BBs think. I've had replies from three members of staff that told us all nothing. I can finally point out the error in your thinking.

Yes, promoting teams and relegating teams balance each other, as one replaces the other. They do that now and they will do that in the future. However, the 2 billion number is the addition in promotion bonuses, and is not balanced by a loss elsewhere. As you've already said the balance is elsewhere. The increase in bonuses is new and massive and not balanced.

you going to tell me that without that promotion cash, you would have survived in II when you promoted? and in the EBBL when you promoted the first time? don't kid yourself.

I've never argued that teams shouldn't get promotion bonuses. I have already covered this in earlier posts and don't repeat everything I've said in every post so I can forgive the oversight on your part. I don't think the extra teams should promote but I have also pointed out that it would be stupid to let teams promote without a bonus. Though as far as I know this is already done with bot promotions.

I don't like adding any more cash to the game than you do. But that is a necessairy injection to guarantee that those who promote a division also have the chance to stay there!

Again, I've not argued for withholding bonuses. Quite the opposite. But it isnt a necessary injection because there's no need to add to promotions.