BuzzerBeater Forums

I don't agree. The market has allready been low, the market has allready been full of nice players and you know what? The training was harder than now! So saying that the training is the consequence of all the diseases is wrong.

Moreover, I've read that the high market is a bad thing for new teams. Again I don't agree. An old team like me was able to stay season after season on top because it was easy for a winning team to renew his roster without losing in competitivity. In many countries you saw the same team champion again and again. Now the market is high, it's impossible, even the old and well-managed teams have to tank some seasons to rebuild a good roster (except in the micronations of course). The consequence is that we see (and we will see) more different champions.

Perhaps the market was stronger in the past. Let's examine why. It's been posted here that the user base was over 50,000 in Buzzerbeater's prime. There are currently 18,656 users. If every team was using 1 position training on 3 trainees that would give us:

Then
50,000 teams * 3 trainees/team = 150,000 trainees receiving full speed training.

Now
18,656 teams * 3 trainees/team = 55,968 trainees receiving full speed training.

This means that there are 63% less players receiving the fastest amount of training per season. So less players being trained, yet their is still demand for the same number of trainees as there was when their were 50,000 users. Further, there are still the same number of leagues in existence, actually more when you factor in Utopia, which means that their is the same amount, if not more, money in the Buzzerbeater.

This means that right now each team should be training 8 players at full speed training to provide the same number of trained players into the market.

Instead we have a scenario where only 1/3rd of the players needed are being trained.

Imagine what would happen to the prices on the transfer list if another 100,000 trained players were added into the market. Prices would plummet and all teams would be able to remain competitive. No more need to tank. No more need for boycotts or taxes on excess profits to remove money from the game.

I submit that the actual speed of training (i.e. the amount of time it takes for certain skills to pop) is fine. The problem that needs fixing is the 63% decrease in the number of players that can receive full speed training.

What I want is to be able to train my PF's and C's in inside skills and PG's and SG's in outside skills at the same time. Instead I can only do one. And being in a country with a large user base that means a lot of losing until a team builds its arena, then acquires talent, then spends 2 calendar years training only 3 players. The another 2 calendar years training another 3 players.

That may work in a league with less than 200 users but it doesn't work in leagues with large numbers of users.

I certainly can see and understand why you don't see a problem with the status quo. You've been in the Top Division for 27 straight seasons, and often in B3 as well. Good for you. However I strongly believe that many long time users don't understand the problems that new teams face to even be slightly competitive. Things are vastly different now for new teams than they were 8 years ago.

Every suggestions I read since the start of this season have the same goal: make the game easier. In my opinion it's not only the BB decisions who explains the decreasing interest, but the suggestions made upstream by the users.

Can we make it harder but be able to train twice as many players? Joemaverick you are a very good manager, do you think you'd make it to D1 in Belgium with an entirely homegrown team?

Now the market is high, it's impossible, even the old and well-managed teams have to tank some seasons to rebuild a good roster (except in the micronations of course).

Come on, when you have a 35 million roster you have the equivalent of 35 million cash AND the cash you have in the bank. With prices going up the 35 million also goes up and that means that whoever has higher value rosters is the least affected by inflation.

When Darkonza rebuilds for the first time in his life I'll be happy to entertain the discussion though.


Last edited by Lemonshine at 12/18/2016 3:20:00 PM

a manager as smart as you will have always an advantage if he has started the game before you. Always. Your suggestions will change the game, but won't help you.

You should know better than this. Because many of the top managers who are still in the game and won B3 and many titles in their nation emerged in the era of low prices and daytrading for a reason. This is the truth. We can name at least 4 relatively recent B3 winners for whom this is true.

So yeah, your statement is probably true now, but it wasn't necessarily the case 10 seasons ago. The changes that have been implemented make it a lot harder for new teams to catch up, because compared to 10-15 seasons ago a) you need a lot more cash to compete and b) it will take you ages to catch someone who has tens of millions invested in players just by generating new cash.

In a sense when players were dirt cheap bank accounts were almost irrelevant. What did you need 50 million back then when you could buy a very good team with 10? Cash and bank accounts became relevant when they decided that inflation was good for the economy and the long term prosperity of the game. It was obvious this would happen as much as it was obvious that the minute prices went up and you eliminated daytrading the users who had 50 million in the bank or tens of millions worth of players would benefit massively.

If a manager is smart it's easier to stay on top right now than it used to be when people could buy very good players on the cheap. At that time you could accumulate 30 million much faster, you could keep it in your bank without major penalties and 30 million would most definitely buy you a B3 contender (in fact B3 has been 'bought' with much less than $30 million as you surely know since you were in the competition when it happened and if you don't remember we can just ask Misagh)

Last edited by Lemonshine at 12/18/2016 4:12:39 PM

My suggestion would change the game and help new users immensely. And yes, long-term managers would eventually face more competition. If they are as talented as you've been with your team then they will rise to the top as well.

However, if you just want to keep the status quo because it benefits your team and other long term managers the most, that's fine. Just don't expect everyone to agree with you.

The game will continue to hollow out and the number of new users sticking around will keep dropping because the mechanics of the game are broken.

And have been for some time.