BuzzerBeater Forums

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.

Aren't this the "Minor Suggestions" Thread?

Hi to all, I had a suggestion for making BB even more fun than it is now. I suggest that All-Star teams to be selected by some manager that it is voted to be a coach of the west/east, lets say like in NT and U21. And the both coaches can make tactics and all the stuff. All the best :)

I suggest "Individual Training" as a complement to current training.

It would work just like ordinary training(trainer, height, age and elastic effect), but with a much lower effect, like 5-10%? of ordinary training dosage(based on selection of training). Other training restriction apply, like cap hit but they are not bound to playing minutes or positions. This is not meant to give every player 2 extra pops every season, but a bonus pop every now and then.
This way you could try to get a players Stamina or Free Throws up a level over a couple of seasons without having to train the whole team a week or two every season. Or any other Skill for that matter. All forms of training is available, individual or team, except game shape.

It's also more realistic, that players actually learn something even if the don't play on the training position that week.

A player who is recieving ordinary training will focus 100% on that, but if he doesn't get 48+min training, he will recieve (up to 100% total training) his individual training.
Lets say Player A trains Shot Blocking but only gets 47min on the C position this week, he gets his ordinary training and that's calculated to, lets say, roughly 97% of ordinary training, that means there's space for 3% of the individual training.
Player B how only gets 20min on the C position gets his normal amount of individual training 5-10%.

Players will develop(very slowly) even if they don't recieve any (ordinary) training and it should be easier to develop lower skills than higher. Maybe there should be a ceiling on how high this individual training actually works.

Since your TO:s usually don't get individual training and the training dosage is so small, there will still be need for Team Training like Stamina and Free Throws to raise these skills on your team.