BuzzerBeater Forums

Thank you for the discussion to my matter and all the assistance. I am ready now to fight.

I will report after 16 weeks are over.

Well, on the concept of "the good of the game" I figure that making the game better overall is and always should be the primary goal.

If thats the case and I strongly believe that from the BB side there is will to improve the game, now that Ryan is on board, there need to be specific solutions for specific situations.

A general haircut won't solve the tanking problem, which from my point of view is a non issue basically. What you gain is less than what you lose, the draft is no incentive to be bad and the narrative always was that demotion costs more than bottom feeding in a higher division. Now tanking is presented as the uber strategy, which is quite strange to understand...

"Making the game better overall" could have been done with many different changes, which of course, consume much more effort and time. Changing five arbitraty numbers (percentages DIV I-IV) is the quickest way to "solve" the problem, but in this case I think we are oversteering in the wrong direction once again.

I have always found it a bit strange actually that a game that do want in a way to limit tanking has one of its biggest "awards"(cant find a better word now) from being the team with the least wins.
I feels as though that is pretty counter productive.

I don't think thats the most rewarding way to play the game and I haven't seen any evidence for it so far. We had one team that bought B3 success, but those times are long gone.

I think tanking has been a popular choice for managers that want to start over in a very carefree manner, maybe are a bit frustrated and try something different, build up the bankroll and get it going again at a later stage.

What hurts retention among new users is how frustrating it is to upgrade your players from the automatically generated dreck comprising the roster of a new team. 99.9% of the initial roster is useless. The TL is expensive and frustrating. And training is difficult to figure out at first as well.

Frankly, if you want to do something to encourage new users to stick around for whatever benefits you see that accomplishing, forget the 18 yo all-star talent and give the TSP's of the randomly generated roster a 10-20% boost. Make so they can actually be a tiny bit competitive out of the box.

Finances don't impact whether a new user sticks around. If it's not fun, or seems overly complicated, they bail.

I agree 100% with with this and I have repeated similar points over and over again in the last several seasons.

Last edited by Lemonshine at 2/25/2016 7:05:14 AM

We had one team that bought B3 success, but those times are long gone.

Twice and he's not bot.

I think tanking has been a popular choice for managers that want to start over in a very carefree manner, maybe are a bit frustrated and try something different, build up the bankroll and get it going again at a later stage.

And now instead of turning a $4 million profit you make $3.5 million. Why should that bother people who want to start over? You're making less, but you're still making a LOT more money than everyone else.

Going down with a smaller roster but fighting should be rewarded compared to just giving up, setting lineups for the entire season and logging in one a month to prevent botification. If you don't want to have salaries closer to the league average and put up a semi-decent fight avoiding blowouts every game, then you make $30k a week less. Big deal.


Last edited by Lemonshine at 2/25/2016 7:14:02 AM

We had one team that bought B3 success, but those times are long gone.

Twice and he's not bot.

I think tanking has been a popular choice for managers that want to start over in a very carefree manner, maybe are a bit frustrated and try something different, build up the bankroll and get it going again at a later stage.

And now instead of turning a $4 million profit you make $3.5 million. Why should that bother people who want to start over? You're making less, but you're still making a LOT more money than everyone else.

Whoa, he's not bot. Wow, that puts everything in a different perspective. NOT.

3.5 million in this economy won't get you a roster worthwhile admiring tho, those 4 mil of the past few years could buy you a boss roster. #Justsayin

Whoa, he's not bot. Wow, that puts everything in a different perspective. NOT.

Are you saying I'm being pedantic about you being pedantic?

3.5 million in this economy won't get you a roster worthwhile admiring tho, those 4 mil of the past few years could buy you a boss roster. #Justsayin

And I'm sure it would not have escaped you that sucking out money from the economy is a surefire way to make sure people have less cash and prices go down. You are arguing about WHO is getting hit by the change, but, overall, if the number of users is static, less cash=lower prices, that is common sense.

Tankers and people playing with ridiculously low salary teams are the very reason why someone (THEM) can afford a 5 million price tag in the first place... #justsaying

Last edited by Lemonshine at 2/25/2016 10:48:39 AM

I am saying that mixing in irrelevant information does not add value to this discussion. We'll see soon enough if changes need to be done.

What hurts retention among new users is how frustrating it is to upgrade your players from the automatically generated dreck comprising the roster of a new team. 99.9% of the initial roster is useless. The TL is expensive and frustrating. And training is difficult to figure out at first as well.

Frankly, if you want to do something to encourage new users to stick around for whatever benefits you see that accomplishing, forget the 18 yo all-star talent and give the TSP's of the randomly generated roster a 10-20% boost. Make so they can actually be a tiny bit competitive out of the box.

Finances don't impact whether a new user sticks around. If it's not fun, or seems overly complicated, they bail.

I agreed for the most part. I did not find it all that expensive to significantly upgrade my roster. But, of my original 18 guys, only 2 of them total were worth bothering to keep. Even then 1 of the 2 I kept was the 18 year old AS and really he's prob my 2nd worst player on my team if not worst now. So essentially I only got 1 player worth anything from my original 18.

But I was able to find several players between 50-60 TSP for 1-15K which for the division I start in, is all that I will really need for the short term.

Let's have a look at the problem called "tanking". What are those tanking teams managers doing?

1) Usually the sell off most of their valuable players at the end of the season / start of the new season.
2) They have or buy new traineesm 18 years with high potential.
3) The have a team earning ~ the salary floor.
4) The prices for their seats in the arena are near the minimum, though their having a lot of fans (at least at the start of the season).
5) They dress a trainee and often 2 scrubs during league games. Or they dress a team with a salary of ~50k for a league game in Div. I.
6) They play TIE in their league games.
7) They dress their best players in their Cup games.
8) They play CT only in Cup games.
9) They lose their league games by -50, even -100 regularly.
10) They lose not one, not 2 but usually 22 league games in a row.

So why does it seem to be so difficult to code something that makes the fans run away from the team?
I'm no IT guy, but couldn't you code something like that for attendance (all are accumulative:

1) If team's salary is < salary floor then -5% attendance.
2) players age: if average age of players is <20 or >35 then -5% attendance.
3) Last game:
team lost the last game by <5 = normal attendance
team lost the last game by <15 = -5% attendance
team lost the last game by <25 = -10% attendance
team lost the last game by < 35 = -15% attendance
team lost the last game by <45 = -20% attendance
team lost the last game by <75 = -30% attendance
team lost the last game by <100 = -50% attendance
4) Series:
team won last XX games: +(XX*5%)
team lost last XX games: -(XX*5%)
5) dress less than 5 players in a game: -20% attendance - or perhaps override the lineup totally and use any available player on the team.

Those numbers and variables are just made up. But I hope they'll help this discussion as a basis.

Last edited by LA-Karangula at 2/28/2016 6:04:45 PM