BuzzerBeater Forums

Yes, I understand their purpose and the original intent. I am 100% crystal clear on that.

I have stated twice already that the economy and player base has changed since the inception of star players on new teams. I am suggesting that the tutorial rewards for new players get a "buff" in the sense that new players should have the CHOICE to sell them or not. This would give new players access to more funds which helps them speed up the timeline for competing with veteran teams who already have a huge weekly income advantage.

The spending power of (x amount) of ingame currency has gone down since the tutorial was put in place, so new players are at a disadvantage compared a new team starting out throughout most of BB history. I am merely suggesting that the developers consider these game/economic factors.

Ya'll, this game gives you players you cannot sell for 6 months.

6.

Months.

I mean...

We don't need to add more complexity for the staff, we just need them to unlock these star players. Problem solved. Wanna keep em? You can. Wanna sell them? You can.

Easy peasy.

I don't think players of that "caliber" have a thriving market, both in research and value.
Stronger players than those are found for a few thousand dollars and are probably better built or more specialized.

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.