BuzzerBeater Forums

I have mixed feelings about supporters being able to have 2nd teams and am probably leaning towards the negative

Positives - might;
encourage more of the current Managers to take up supporter
give more depth to smaller nations thus making it more enjoyable for those currently in those nations
better for flag chasers
Allow seasoned Managers the challenge of starting from scratch without losing their existing team
Give good Managers from strong countries the opportunity to play B3 by being best of small Nation


Negatives- might;
Make it easier to cheat
Might encourage non supporters to cheat -set up a 2nd team free of charge



I would rather have a separate competition as a benefit for supporters, such as some of those already suggested, utopia, womens, regional divisional tournaments etc, but understand that such "leagues" would cost more to set up

Should the 2nd team concept go ahead I believe that the Managers name for both teams should be the same and that their should be a reference to the other team on each teams page;

Hopelessly Addicted
Sid Vicious
(This Manager also manages .......(hyperlink to other team)

and on the 2nd team


Sex Pistols (Supporters 2nd team)
Sid Vicious
(This Manager also manages .... (hyperlink to Hopelessly Addicted)


Again I still have mixed feelings about the whole 2nd team concept

I don't think it should only be for supporters. Because that's unfair to people out there who don't have enough money to buy supporter. If supporters will benefit from it, I think everyone should benefit from it.

Agreed- But you have to factor this about BB as well and making them money.

Ya, I guess. You make a good point bobbanana. They need to make money, but isn't there anything they can do for the people that are non-supporters? I just don't think it's fair to give supporters in game benefits.

Yep.. I just feel like they will eventually make a similar feature for non supporters but it will be less priority.

Yeah, you are probably correct.

Have I ever said how much I hate logic,

I see what your saying, but two teams would be an unfair advantage.

I agree, the BBs have probably thought it over, and they just want to hear our thoughts.

I just read through all these comments, and a few things seem like misconceptions among those opposing the idea:

1. The purpose of this is to raise money to keep BB alive and help make it better and more appealing, and that's a win for everyone. As it is, too small a number of owners pay anything at all (frankly, I played several seasons before buying Supporter, and I felt kinda guilty about it). But think about how hard it is to get people to pay if you can't give them any game advantage. And if more people don't start paying something, then the game might fold.

So think about this logically, please. The second team does not get you any advantage for your first team on the court. It just makes you more attached to the survival of the game and more likely to purchase Supporter and contribute to its success.

Anyone who doesn't ever want to pay but wants to get all the extras too isn't a very valuable customer. And if you really think it's giving an advantage for some reason, then you should buy Supporter and get the advantage you think is there, too. Businesses don't survive by letting non-paying customers make decisions. Free trials usually don't last indefinitely, so the business model here is pretty kind to a great many players.

2. I see mentions of people taking their second team in a nation like the USA, but my understanding of the idea indicates that second teams would go in smaller nations with an insufficient number of users to fill their top divisions. I don't see any reason why you would put second teams in big nations with large active user bases. I would imagine only the nations with smaller numbers of users would be eligible at all.

3. If I were one of the small number of active owners in a micronation, I think I'd be happy to get some added competition and make things like playoff victories meaningful and relegation a real possibility. It would also improve the NT/U21 in those countries significantly to have owners training native players, and of course those teams should still be managed by their home countries. With real competition in those countries, the interest level should go up and you wouldn't need to add more second teams there any more after a while.

Plus, people who pay for a second team are most likely going to do it with the goal of helping the game succeed. Paying to sabotage another country just seems like a very silly reason to spend money.

4. People with investments in the game are much less likely to cheat, because they have something much more to lose if they get caught. There's not much disincentive to cheat when it's free anyway. But if you suddenly are forking out $60 to run your teams, you'd probably think twice before doing anything that would get you banned.

5. Why do people keep suggesting creating new nations for second teams? There are bots all over in first and second divisions. Why create more nations when we can't fill the ones we have at even the highest levels?