BuzzerBeater Forums

Any changes made with the aim of "facilitating the career" of newcomers need to be considered with some care, mainly based on arguments such as "the veterans are already established" and/or "the new managers have a very difficult task ahead of them".

Isn't the monstrous task facing rookie teams more or less the same long journey that the veteran teams actually had to go through?

In addition, it is also worth thinking about the teams that have just gone through this period without selling the "stars", but are still far from being "veterans". Managers who just had to "gnaw this bone" couldn't find it bad the newer ones arriving "eating a steak"?

To suppress or change this rule of the game, we have to start by having come to the conclusion that the rule in question is really bad, that in general this rule offers more harm than good in the game.

I mean, the exact market value of the players is really irrelevant here. I just sold a pretty meh 7.5k player for 17k, and I know two of my Star Players would have gone for more. Doesn't matter if its 10k or 40k.

This is about player agency. It's about empowering new players and owners by giving them more options. More choice is good. We all know this.

I've been playing this game on and off since season 4 yall. Season 4. I used to have nice chats with the OG creators so I very much enjoy and respect the fact this is a long-term game, so thae argument "this is a long-term game" still doesn't properly explain the WHY.

Why would you want to force a new player into a long-term plan by assigning them players they can either fire (and lose money, negative emotions aren't a foundation of good game design) or be forced to build their team around? How is that "better" than letting them build the team how they want? I am still waiting for someone to explain how this is "better"

"Because it's always been this way" Is not a great argument.

My answer was to be understood as "I don't think they make a difference under any circumstances, do as you think".

But if we want to point out some things we could talk about the fact that the possibility of receiving the players in question was put in place precisely to help new players to be competitive from the beginning; and I guess the transfer of players was blocked also to prevent random creating an advantage for some new managers over other new managers.

But now it is not enough to give three valid players just because the managers do the homework (which by the way would be a help just to do it).

Also personally I don't know if this constant trying to help new managers to be competitive right away is so productive for the game.
Proposals to allow the arena to grow with less cost and time and other proposals in this sense seem to diminish the game.
I do not know about you, I in those games in which in a short time you grow a lot without even understanding the game mechanics they annoy me quickly and I abandon them just as soon.
Having said that I have new born users in my series who place purchases above $ 200,000 in the first week of play, I don't know how much money the tutorial gives and how much money you start with, but I remain of these opinions:
- does not affect in an important way;
- I don't think it's productive to make things easier and easier.

These are some really good points. And I agree with you on nearly all of them. Very well said.

Still, I cannot understand how giving a manager roster flexibility is making the gamer easier if the "hard" aspects of the game are stuff like the generating income, transfer market, tactics, training, and weekly load, etc.

I agree those are great challenges and they do make the game very rewarding, but "roster flexibility" should be a no brainer option. It's not a path to making the game "easier", it's making the game more accessible.

So I will just ask you all point blank: can you think of any other sports *simulation game where you are forced to build your team a certain way for the first few months. And again, "just fire them" isn't a valid argument to this. Firing a good player because you want to train Centers and don't want to lose 10k a week (a lot for new owners) isn't FUN or ENJOYABLE.

I am glad the user pop is still over 12k, but c'mon yall, playing in a division that's 60-80% bots is going to be a huge turnoff for a lot of players. And there's really only two ways to solve that issue.

1. Cull some leagues
2. Increase the user pop

Personally, I am a fan of #2 because that means more income for BB and maybe an app sometime before I die.

And I am not saying this is a direct path to making new managers competitive right away. So much more goes into it.

This would, however, give new owners a sense of agency, and that only INCREASES their chance of staying active.

I think this is a trick question, because at no point is BB really a simulation game that forces players to build their team a certain way. The new managers, even receiving the "star players" as a tutorial prize at the beginning of their careers, are still free to manage clubs the way they want, build squads, train players, etc. Those who didn't like the gift and don't want to keep these players in the squad, continue with complete freedom as they can fire the "star players" freely.
And it's obvious that this is a "valid" argument, even if you don't like it or don't agree with it.