BuzzerBeater Forums

I voted against it. I like the idea that all the teams are actually people from their respective countries. It adds an authenticity to the game. I also like that every person gets one team. It adds a certain integrity to the game. There is no redo, or back up plan if the strategy you decided on happens to not work out. Also, being in a league with a bunch of secondary teams isn't that appealing.

There is also potential to use your secondary team to block purchases from your competition in your primary teams league. For example, lets say your primary team is the best team in the league, and toward the end of the season, you notice the second best team bidding on a valuable transfer listed player that could possibly make that team better than yours. You can then use your secondary team to outbid your competition, not really caring about overpaying if you save up money with your second team in order to do these types of things. Or you can bid up players your competition is bidding on just to drive up the price. It would be hard to prove this is cheating unless there is another ban on your secondary team bidding on players that your competition of your primary team has already bid on. I guess this is not a huge deal, but something to think about.

The biggest pros is that it will raise more money for the game, could make the game more enjoyable for people in small countries and would provide more entertainment for people with two teams.

Last edited by Big Chief Triangle at 1/12/2014 8:04:58 PM

I do know how to enjoy BB- I was just saying that it is a minor advantage- but PLs already were.

And yes, I voted yes because I love BB as well- particularly league and global forums.

And of course the game..

Last edited by Bobbanana at 1/12/2014 8:22:13 PM

Please don't make it a supporter feature!

Please don't make it a supporter feature!

Sadly- It would be needed to be a supporter feature to help the BB's make more money to keep the game running.

I completely understand having it as a supporter feature. But I'm curious: just how bad is BB's financial situation? (Am I allowed to ask that?)

You claim these “Possible pros:”
(1) small nation managers might welcome the influx of new teams, boosting competition levels
(2) might help reduce cheating
(3) doubles the fun for active managers
(4) increases BB income, increasing the advertisement and development budget

Let’s examine those points:
(1) Maybe in a few cases this will be true. But many managers choosing and paying for second teams in a country where there are mostly bots and a sorry, limited player pool? Well, that would be completely pointless. And if it does happen in a few small countries that get a significant proportion of foreign managers, they will also LOSE local managers who don’t want to play in a mixed league. Paying managers shouldering aside free-play managers contradicts your current principles. And new local managers trying to learn the game will have no competitive chance against experienced managers from competitive larger nations. Mixed-country rosters already almost destroy the geographical integrity of the game; this proposal would finish it off, making most leagues nothing but a mixed international league. Guys, this is an argument you CANNOT win.

(2) Respectfully, it would not only double the opportunity to cheat, but more likely increase the opportunity exponentially. I have played the game less than one full season and already see cheating. I even reported some, and nothing happened. Much more cheating is discussed in the boards that I don’t even understand. Although it might be undiplomatic for me to say it so directly, if you cleaned up the cheating you would probably gain more revenue than second teams would ever generate.

At least a few NT’s and drafts will be compromised if you get any significant number of duplicate teams.

BB tries to discourage farming. A proposal that increases farming makes no sense at all.

(3) Not so; it doesn’t even double the number of active teams, since a lot of supporters would not take a second team. Managers either take the game seriously or they don’t. Serious managers get fun from competition, which a second team doesn’t help. Managers that aren’t serious aren’t a likely source of revenue for you. “Double the fun for active managers” is just blowing smoke.

(4) I sympathize with your search for more revenue. This is a mature, generally bug free game that simulates basketball very well. That is a quality product. The way to get more revenue is to improve the remaining game engine needs, really crack down on cheating, and improve the organization of the (currently mixed up) boards. A proposal that compromises the quality of the product is no answer.

I am a supporter and expect to continue as one. I vote a strong NO for many, many reasons.

I dont think it needs to be a supporter feature, making everyone(supporter or not) pay a fee for a second team.

I already said something like that earlier- A one time payment of lets say $15 would be fine in my opinion.

I completely understand having it as a supporter feature. But I'm curious: just how bad is BB's financial situation? (Am I allowed to ask that?)

I dont know. lol

I did make a suggestion in the suggestion folders that kind of acts like a 2nd team but isnt- and doesnt require supporter.