BuzzerBeater Forums

There was once an American football MMORPG called Goal Line Blitz. It had inherent flaws, but it was still reasonably fun - until managers started complaining about the game every time something went wrong for their team. This allowed them to blame their troubles on the game, instead of taking responsibility and working to succeed within the current game. Admins listened to too many of these complaints and changed the game rapidly, causing new problems every season, and the game is now a ghost town, where even the most dedicated managers only play because they bought too many "flex points" and don't want to waste their money.

I love BB because it's avoided going down this path. However, I've been troubled by some of what I've heard around the BB forums. The salary floor, for example, was implemented as a response to complaints about tanking teams - a noble cause, surely - but it ignored the plight of teams promoting into leagues they can't compete in anyways. The 2-3 zone is said by many managers to be "broken," even though there has been little to no use of the defense with forwards with OD and a center with SB. If 2-3 is changed because of the complaints of managers who are just upset they lost games when they tried playing it with a 4 OD PF, that might be it for me.

Changes should not be reactionary. I think the BBs generally do a great job of this, but seeing that this offseason contained quite a few changes, I think it would be wise to halt any non-cosmetic changes for a calendar year. The strategy of over-tinkering with the game engine, financial system, etc. will only result in another GLB, a dying hulk of something once great, but destroyed from within.

No, it really doesn't. That argument is clearly fallacious. You try and establish a causal link while neglecting other possible reasons why the defense hasn't worked at high levels, of which there are many.

Wrong thread to start this argument, but it's worth pointing out that arguments like this are exactly what I'm worried about. GLB listened to complaints similar to the one above, and it ruined the game.

2-3 needs a chance, though. There's a reason BB-Charles has said many times that the defense can work well when the right players are used. If you haven't tried it with these players, you can't say it's broken. Regardless of whether 2-3 actually works or not - please, please at least try to get what I'm saying here.

Last edited by RiseandFire at 4/21/2011 6:33:27 PM

Changes should not be reactionary. I think the BBs generally do a great job of this, but seeing that this offseason contained quite a few changes, I think it would be wise to halt any non-cosmetic changes for a calendar year. The strategy of over-tinkering with the game engine, financial system, etc. will only result in another GLB, a dying hulk of something once great, but destroyed from within.

Most of the changes of this season come from things that have been suggested here and discussed lot of times(some of them before you joined the game);

*give up Strategys (178778.1)

*Better Training Method For SF (174785.1) (season 17 trainings change i suppose)

* Make the best players actually (158188.1)

We got luck BB's heard us, but they don't listen us so often to be honest...

This kind of comments, comes from new managers or from managers who haven't a wide experince on the game and the complains normally comes from managers who have been playing on this game lot of seasons.

You just have a few experience, but it seems you got lot of experience to talk about GE and so on...


Last edited by Marot at 4/21/2011 7:11:11 PM

I haven't been playing for as long as many others, but I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. Just another fallacy I'm afraid.

The suggestions and discussions are fine. Implementing them because a lot of people complained is not always fine. I've played BB long enough to understand the arguments and counterarguments for all of these suggestions. Some of them are sensible. Others haven't been explored enough, and are supported only by hot air emitted from masses of angry managers. Those suggestions, when implemented due to quantity but not quality of complaints, are what hurt the game in the long run.

The idea of this suggestion is to 1) give those changes not implemented more time to be discussed, and 2) allow managers to, for example, try to make the 2-3 work, or try to find the worth of shot blocking, instead of calling them broken. Things are what they are for a reason. We should learn to work with them, and if we fail every time, then a change may be called for.

Honestly, I like most of the changes this season (torn on the salary floor, not entirely sure about the new training). But have you considered that sometimes, it's better that the BBs don't listen to us? (Or maybe listen to us, but opt not to agree with the majority?)

Last edited by RiseandFire at 4/21/2011 7:19:18 PM

All you say there is;

-Care ¡¡¡ I know a game[...] where managers suggestions ruined the game.

This kind of arguments are used in everything just to afraid others.

But i know many games that are really good also because the managers helped in suggesting things to improve the game.



The game is still on a young stage(for example new potentials haven't been retired) and we lived some unexpected situations in the game that any BB had the chance to predict.

On this game the managers always cared about the imbalances between tactics, we discussed a lot threads like Outside against inside tactics(seasons 5+) and if today we say(not only me, a wide range of experienced managers saying 2-3 doesn't work) it must be because we observed things that doesn't work as supposed.

Last edited by Marot at 4/21/2011 7:28:23 PM

But how is 2-3 "supposed to work"? 2-3 hasn't worked with the players currently popular in the game. It hasn't been tested enough with:
1) forwards with good OD
2) centers with good SB

Like you said, the game is new. People like BB-Charles swear that SB is important and that 2-3 is usable. If he's right, maybe there is a problem in the way PFs and Cs are trained.

Once again, arguments such as "2-3 doesn't work because a lot of experienced managers say so" aren't by themselves good enough reasons to make changes. Not enough testing has been done by BB managers! Maybe you're right - but maybe you're not!

There's a fundamental difference between changing something in the game because managers don't like it, and changing it because every possible way to make it work has ended in failure.

Ofc it's been tested with centers with SB and SF's with good OD-ID... ¡

BB-Charles always said SB was important(i think he said it like some season ago) but the case is that we haven't see any team being a Champion because of his SB training. Sb effect is so litle, but the effect on the salary is so high.


BB's changed on the past the zones, introduced defensive changes/help to make it more real(because on the past when you were using a zone, the players were defending m2m). At the begining the zones were a joke and weren't well designed with defensive changes in every play.

Managers complained a lot and they fixed the issue and the game improved a lot with this change on the GE.

If we trust your argument, managers can't complain when they see something doesn't work right.

We're going off topic here, but I'd feel differently if I saw it tested a considerable amount. I don't think BB has enough players trained to run the tests to the point where the sample size is large enough.

For the purposes of this thread - the difference lies in the form of argument presented. This is why I think it would be good to step back for a while and let managers play the game as is.

You were completly shut down on this exact topic in another thread by multiple people including GMs and coaches in the NBBA and division one in Europe so you now just raise your same illogical and incorrect points in another thread. One change that they shouldn't have made was the ability to rate forum posts with a negative.

Why so rude? The other thread contained good discussion, but was derailed by some unrelated arguments and disagreements over terminology. On my actual point, the consensus is split at best, and nobody really knows enough to call my theory "right" or "wrong."

Anyways, this is really deviating from the original post, so just forget I mentioned 2-3 for the purposes of this thread. I didn't make this thread because of 2-3.