BuzzerBeater Forums

2 questions.

1/ Why bring in something that does favour a more casual BB user? Is it linked to trying to grow the BB user numbers? If so, and if convinced in that direction then sure, fine (not sure the poll does that, not sure the thread does yet...need more opinions from newer rather than older users and they'll be harder to get).

2/ How binding is something like this poll? As someone else noted, it seems more actual posts are a no. If something like 40% of the userbase don't like the change, that's a significant proportion, and why do something to annoy that set of people.

I do like the idea of discussing this kind of thing with the userbase in advance of making a change, but I think you'd want at least a 66% in favour to go forward with changes?

(https://devblog.hattrick.org/2012/11/on-the-dear-topic-of-...)

Just did a web search to see some of the discussion around the issue when HT introduced this, and found a blog by one of the developers. Hope it's ok to link this, thought it was interesting as they seemed to have a lot of the same talking points.

For me it is a yes, and I voted yes.

I've been an active user since Season 10, and have been at the top of my country's table for the last several seasons, as well as made B3 playoffs. I also have an 80yr old player (please don't make a rule to get rid of my Argentinian friend - he still hopes to make an NT team one day). So, not a casual user.

There are a lot of really insightful thoughts and opinions that have been shared so far, though it was quite a hefty read to properly digest and reflect each point. That being said, there are a massive amount of assumptions, many of which have been repeated several times over. Some of the big ones have been about a decrease of user activity and an increase of player prices. Some of these assumptions seem to make sense logically (like the first, though a decrease in user activity might lead to an increase in overall numbers) and others might make sense (like the second), but there are other variables that could change that outcome. Basically, there is a lot of assumption without evidence.

I don't know how much it might change the game; it could be a little or a lot. Having been around for a while, I lean towards the former. I think it's worth a try for a period of time to see if it works out. Maybe 3 seasons... If it causes a massive amount of issues, then cull it. I think the BB community (the real BB community - the stayers and the new ones who will stay), are a pretty humble folk and look forward to making the game better.

I wanted to leave it at that to keep it short(er), but do have one extra comment. I've been playing a while and one of the things that makes it difficult for me to continue is the time required to spend to be at a higher level. I think this change will allow me to better compete on the TL, and therefore in games, without as much time spent. Sure you can just bid at a "fair price" or over compensate for that player, but that punishes me for not being able to get up at 2am (which I am sometimes, but that's to deal with babies) or miss my child's gymanstics lesson or whatever it is, to steal a deal on the TL. I've only played a few online games like this and I've quit the ones that required me to be on all the time to compete. Tribal Wars was the worst... Such a cool concept at the start, but I just couldn't stay that engaged to be competitive.

Edit: I'm wondering what the population (of real people and of BB users) of the Northern hemisphere is compared to the Southern...

Stay humble folks.

Last edited by Balev at 2/14/2023 7:29:24 PM

Hello good evening! The idea is really good, but as a new player I can't stop thinking about the disadvantage that this change would generate for me. My team is new and I only have 3 Seasons, I'm working to generate a good income and have a solid economy, but I still can't get it. My point is that with this option, the teams with high economic capacity would put a maximum offer that clearly it would be difficult for the smaller teams to overcome and it would be impossible to buy a good player because he would be full of automatic offers... I think it should continue as it is and if someone wants a player they have to be present and fight for him, as the name indicates auction! Being able to buy a good player at a low price because users are not connected is also a market tactic and one that we poor people make the most of. This is my humble opinion, thanks so much for reading and working so hard to keep this great game up!

Greetings ATTE: Dt ASIEL, Nobleza Gaucha.

(In Spanish in case google doesn't translate something well)

Hola buenas noches! Realmente la idea esta muy buena, pero como jugador nuevo no puedo dejar de pensar en la desventaja que me generaría este cambio. Mi equipo es nuevo y tengo solo 3 Temporadas, estoy trabajando para generar un buen ingreso y tener una economía solida, pero todavía no lo consigo. Mi punto es que al estar esta opción, los equipos con alta capacidad económica pondrían una oferta máxima que claramente a los equipos mas chicos nos costaría superar y imposible poder comprar un jugador bueno por que este estaría lleno de ofertas automáticas pienso que debería seguir tal cual esta y si alguien quiere un jugador tiene que estar presente y pelear por el, como su nombre lo indica subasta! poder comprar un buen jugador a bajo precio por que los usuarios no están conectado es una táctica de mercado también y que los pobres aprovechamos al máximo. Esta es mi humilde opinión, muchas gracias por leer y trabajar tan duro para mantener este gran juego!

Saludos ATTE: Dt ASIEL, Nobleza Gaucha

My point is that with this option, the teams with high economic capacity would put a maximum offer that clearly it would be difficult for the smaller teams to overcome and it would be impossible to buy a good player because he would be full of automatic offers...

My understanding:

The teams with "high economic capacity", specifically the ones who utilise the TL to get to that capacity, will possibly (likely in my experience) already be online outcompeting the new, or lower economic capacity, manager for those players. Further, and in contrast, the managers with high economic capacity are less likely to overpay for a player, because finance is one of the big factors of success in this game. Maybe I'm missing some things of course, but, if anything, it will put the lower income capacity managers on a level with those high ones. To me it seems more of a tool to level the playing field rather than make the rich richer and the poor poorer.

Of course, with all tools, there are ways to use them for both "good and evil", hence my suggestion of a trial.

Ha ha ha, then you should choose the third option

The autobid system seems to work very well for Hattrick Soccer and has for years. It's implemented very close to this proposal too. That's all I'm saying.

不赞成。用户实时对转会球员竞争也是这个游戏非常重要的乐趣，降低用户在转会这块的活跃度，且对新人不友好。新人资金不足，难以与其它玩家竞争。
disapproval. It is also a very important pleasure for users to compete with transfer players in real time. It reduces the activity of users in transfer and is unfriendly to newcomers. The newcomers are short of funds and difficult to compete with other players.

Hard pass on that one.

There is another game out there with a buy now feature and the developer of that game has openly stated it is a pay to win feature.

The autobid system seems to work very well for Hattrick Soccer and has for years. It's implemented very close to this proposal too. That's all I'm saying.

You realize this game isn't Hattrick right? Just because a feature may be in one game doesn't mean it should be in every game.

I would add that the time of the season where autobid would be used the most is in the initial post-draft frenzy. The site is already unstable then. Adding another feature like this will only make that instability worse.