BuzzerBeater Forums

If a new manager paid for a capped arena at the onset then he does have a significant advantage. Look at this example:

Manager A pays real world money for capped arena
Makes $100k a week in profits
Can spend profits on players to improve team and promote with an arena that is ready for the next level

Manager B doesn't pay real world moeny for capped arena
Makes $100k a week in profits(Probably less than Manager A since arena is smaller)
Has to spend at least part of profits on arena in order to prepare for promotion while spending on players too
If/when he promotes, has to spend money on area to be at a level to make money at the next level while upgrading players to stay competitive.

I would suggest that you still need in-game money to initiate the construction of the seats, but then you can pay to have it completed right away (or pay half that amount after half the construction time to finish it).

I agree with you that it should be prevented that the game ends up as pay to win, but it seems we differ in our view on what is pay to win. I'm someone who doesn't want to pay for feature, advantages or speeding up things, so I'm on the same page as you in that regard. However, I do try to look through the eyes of the paying users and of BB in the sense that the things you can pay for need to be attractive for those that pay for it, so that BB can generate money. If micro-transactions are limited purely to cosmetic features, I think it won't generate a lot of money because there's not a lot of people that want to spend money on that.

However, I think the newer generations have a need for instant gratification and are willing to pay to get things faster. That would generate a lot of money for BB, and more serious projects like an app could be developed with that. That's a positive for non-paying users too.

In the end, if you want a good game, it needs to be paid for. I'm perfectly fine with paying time for a game while others pay money. That way I can profit from the money they invest in the game I play for free, and I'm fine with having to spend more time to get to the point that paying users get faster.

As an exisiting manager, I'm not negatively effected because I already have my arena and good roster. As a new manager, you could experience a negative effect. You could combat that by also paying to speed up progress (new generation might do this), or you could just go for the long haul (older generation like existing managers might do this). However, since new manager already face the disadvantage versus exisiting managers, I don't think giving the option to pay for progress is detrimental to the experience of new non-paying users.

Before hitting send message:
CTRL+A (select all)
CTRL+C (copy to clipboard)

Always. Supporter or not.

Thanks for the tip, that's what I almost always do, except for the times that I forget and realize it while I hit send message

If a new manager paid for a capped arena at the onset then he does have a significant advantage. Look at this example:

Manager A pays real world money for capped arena
Makes $100k a week in profits
Can spend profits on players to improve team and promote with an arena that is ready for the next level

Manager B doesn't pay real world moeny for capped arena
Makes $100k a week in profits(Probably less than Manager A since arena is smaller)
Has to spend at least part of profits on arena in order to prepare for promotion while spending on players too
If/when he promotes, has to spend money on area to be at a level to make money at the next level while upgrading players to stay competitive.

Sorry I missed your message earlier. Yes of course it's an advantage, otherwise people wouldn't pay for it. But it's only a speed advantage, they do not get any advantage during the basketball games. In my opinion, "pay-to-win" featuers would be something like paying to give your player a boost during games. I suggest only paying for speeding up progress, which makes it worthwhile to pay for, but in the end there is no difference in a basketball game between a paying and a non-paying manager.

I think it doesn't change the game for non-paying managers, progress is already slow and there are already established teams with better arena's and rosters etc. It still takes the same amount of time to reach the top for non-paying managers.

To emphasize, I'm a non-paying manager too, I don't want to pay for speed of progress and I don't want to lose games because my opponent pays real money to do so. I do like if others do pay money, so the game I play for free can be improved. Sticking with just cosmetic features to pay for will only generate a small amount of money I'm afraid, while offering speed of progress could generate a lot of money.

You and I clearly disagree at what an “in game advantage” is. I’m talking about BB as a whole. Getting a leg up on an arena or anything else you can pay real world money for gives an advantage over someone that doesn’t pay. Just like in my example, that person can afford better players sooner which translates to how you’re interpreting “in game advantage” and gives them better chances to win each game.

Yes, I'm referring to an advantage as something that cannot be accessed without paying for it. If a non-paying manager can still buy the same players and build the same arena as a paying user, it only takes him more time, I don't see a problem with that. What I do see a problem is in granting paying users access to something a non-paying user cannot get, like paying to get higher cap on your arena or boosting in-game performance.

As long as time to get to the top league/B3/win a cup is not something that this game is about, I see no problem in having people pay to speed up progress. What difference does it make for a manager if he loses to someone who started BB at the same time as him but paid to get a good roster sooner, or to someone that just started before him and got that same good roster just by playing the game longer?

It makes a big difference in my opinion if a manager loses to someone that started at the same time because the other manager paid real world money for a complete arena and a better roster. Length of time playing is a different advantage completely to paying to get ahead. I think you'll not only find pushback from BBs on that as a pay to play, but a lot of longtime managers will leave the game if it ever comes to that.