BuzzerBeater Forums

Now this is a well reasoned counter argument rather than Utopia Ants and flying unicorn turds. I do not and I have never have suggested any drastic change, not for the arena and not for training, although I suspect the flying-unicorn-turd man, will actually argue the opposite based my previous out-of-context or non-existent statements.

If you think user retention is not a priority, then are you also against boosting the number of managers via App or Marketing?

I categorically reject your premise, and therefore the answer is irrelevant.

The premise being? Just wanna make sure we're still on the same planet. As I say blue and you say it's not magenta.

If the goal is to build a 20k arena as fast as possible, with all other factors put aside, sure, it's the fastest way. If competing in the game, growing your team for future competition, etc. matter, it's not the best way. But who signs up for a manager game to ... manage?

Again this is your opinion based and you assume everyone thinks rationally or share your point of view. I'm not sure if you really believe most new users (again I don't mean you and I) are willing to invest 2 years just to get to a point where their revenues are close to those of their opponents. D3 in England has plenty of 20k arena teams and that's the division you start in.

It's the same argument, except that of course one makes explicit the assumption that you're competing against people from your league/country and the other ignores that and insteads focusing on "leveling the playing field" as if a user should worry more about what happened 36 months or more ago to teams they're never playing.

This is again your view of this game (and mine too) and there is no evidence whatsoever that the new managers see the game this way. Perhaps the correct way to address this would be to ask new managers what they believe the worst aspects of their "induction" are and what bothers them the most. So we can stop ranting about opinions and arguing without a shred of evidence.

Now, the counterpoint: prove that you have to have a 14k-4k-500-50 arena to be competitive, and that the inability to do so is responsible for even a quarter of the people who leave the game. On the last point, since neither of us have details about why users leave as a general matter, please feel free to cite the people who claim that this needs to be fixed, as compared to the number of posts about how many people think LI was overbalanced or training needs to be fixed or game shape training needs to go away or the blank lineup is overpowered or how GDP is overpowered or the draft needs to be fixed or... well, you get the point.

Straw man again as of course I've never said that this should be a top priority. My point, so that we're clear once and for all, is that user retention should be combined with bringing in new users via app or marketing. This discussion started in the first thread where someone suggested faster training as a mean to retain more players. I just added that another big barrier was spending a huge amount of cash and time towards the arena. What I got in response here are Utopia ants and flying unicord turds.

At least we seem to agree that nobody here has any evidence to back up his claims except that it does take about 2 years to buld a competitive arena. The correct way to address this would be to ask the new managers what they think. Unless of course you also believe that people who think 2 years are too long shouldn't play this game.

Last edited by Lemonshine at 11/3/2014 6:12:46 PM

At least we seem to agree that nobody here has any evidence to back up his claims except that it does take about 2 years to buld a competitive arena. The correct way to address this would be to ask the new managers what they think. Unless of course you also believe that people who think 2 years are too long shouldn't play this game.

Clearly, we'd need to ask people what their idea of competitive is, since we're several thousand words into this by now and we can't even agree on that. I will point out for the record that 11 of the 16 teams in the NBBA currently fail to feature a 20k arena either, so I suppose you may be right and the problem is worse than I feared. If the top teams in one of the toughest countries in the BB world can't even have competitive arenas after all their time playing the game, what hope do any other teams have?

The correct way to address this would be to ask the new managers what they think. Unless of course you also believe that people who think 2 years are too long shouldn't play this game.

In my humble opinion, it is not the size of an arena which is the biggest hurdle to new managers in this game, but instead it is the knowledge of the game.

I would think that 2 years is a reasonable expectation about the time period it would take to acquire that experience and knowledge.

I believe that the lower divisions should be the training grounds of "learning" managers and I also think it is appropriate that the arena "matures"at the 2 year point which is about the same time that a "good new manager" is ready to tackle Div II or 1 in a reasonably size country.

Should new Managers be able to compete "equally" with seasoned experienced Managers in this game, straight away, then this game will cease to be the strategic challenge that it is.

Should new Managers be able to compete equally straight with the most experienced managers. then I reckon they're going to get quickly bored because they will have nothing to aspire to

Rather than enabling new managers to be able to run before they are walk (build stadiums to completion before they learn the game), I believe that it would be better if we could speed up the rate that managers can gain the level of knowledge required to compete with the best

I.e. more resources that aspiring managers can access , perhaps Youtube training sessions or interviews

Utopia has shown me that there are lots of long term participants in this game who just havent got a clue

i.e. gameshape etc etc etc

Last edited by Sid Vicious at 11/4/2014 5:30:46 AM

I will point out for the record that 11 of the 16 teams in the NBBA currently fail to feature a 20k arena

King of declarative statements and now also adept to cherry picking:
14k+4K+500+50=18550
Number of NBBA teams below 18k arena: 3. Number of teams below 17.7k: 1 (who has 0 wins in the league, will see how long it takes before he wins a game).
Number of teams above 18.9k arena:11

If you don't see the fallacy in your reasoning I can't do it for you, mate.

Here's what you wrote:

Incidentally, I think you're committing a fallacy that a lot of people make - equating things that you personally don't like and assuming that it's the reason for something else you don't like

You don't see how this perfectly applies to you, do you?

I've never mentioned half the points you guys are trying to counter here. In particular, I've never said or thought new managers should be allowed to compete on equal grounds "straight" away. I said that it likely that new managers find a 2 year time period to train players and complete the arena to be a too high time investment for a new game.

There is an issue with user retention. The game is complex and it takes 2 years to compete on equal grounds. If people are voting to increase the number of new users (app/marketing of the game are still topping the vote I believe) then increasing user retention also seems logical.

Possible issues which should be checked with the new managers themselves so that we understand which one needs addressing the most:
- Complexity of the game (your point). It takes 2 years for an average human being to understand the nuances of the game.
- Training is too slow, it takes 2 years to raise a trainee from scratch (someone made a similar point in the other thread and I agree this is an issue)
- Arena building is too slow, it takes 2 years. On top of this it was not this slow in the early seasons so this is not by design. (my point)
- There is no issue with waiting 2 years because those who can't wait that long shouldn't be playing this game or we don't want them playing this game (CaptainTeemo)
- I don't know what you're talking about/ I can't contribute any opinion on the subject (GM-hrudey)

CaptainTeemo's seems like a logical standpoint.

Last edited by Lemonshine at 11/4/2014 4:47:21 AM

I will point out for the record that 11 of the 16 teams in the NBBA currently fail to feature a 20k arena

King of declarative statements and now also adept to cherry picking:
14k+4K+500+50=18550
Number of NBBA teams below 18k arena: 3. Number of teams below 17.7k: 1 (who has 0 wins in the league, will see how long it takes before he wins a game).
Number of teams above 18.9k arena:11

If you don't see the fallacy in your reasoning I can't do it for you, mate.

Did you not ask:

would you please be kind enough to clarify whether you think waiting 2+ years to have a 20k arena is: ...

or not opine:

Of course most D2 teams have 20k arenas, so you're really only making the case for the lowest divisions in each country.

or:

I'm not sure if you really believe most new users (again I don't mean you and I) are willing to invest 2 years just to get to a point where their revenues are close to those of their opponents. D3 in England has plenty of 20k arena teams and that's the division you start in.

See why I keep asking you to define "competitive"? Because it's a moving target. You keep referencing 20k arenas, both before and after you mentioned the 18550 arena query, but apparently that's your personal cherry that I'm not allowed to pick. Clearly, the fallacy in my reasoning is thinking that just because you said something that you actually said it.

Here's what you wrote:

Incidentally, I think you're committing a fallacy that a lot of people make - equating things that you personally don't like and assuming that it's the reason for something else you don't like

You don't see how this perfectly applies to you, do you?

No, but to be fair, neither of us has seemed to clearly grasp anything else you've been saying. Maybe in a post or two that quoted bit will mean something else that will then make some sort of sense, at least for whatever period of time that it is before it then means something else. Maybe I should just let you discuss this among yourself and see if you can formulate a clear, cogent and consistent series of thoughts rather than confusing what you are trying to say by repeating what you actually say.