BuzzerBeater Forums

Since the thread is quite long already i take the liberty to summarize the problems with the S37 news.

1. Untimely communication
While not a fan of tanking, i can still see that in current market conditions this might be the only way for some teams to rebuild. I am in favour of anti-tanking measures but communicating them after the saison already started is bad style.

2. Miscommunication
The salary changes were sold as LI-team-salary balancing measures. In this regard they failed miserably. There is not a single example so far were a LI team had a significantly higher raise in team salary caused by non-trained players <33 yo than a competitive non-Li team of the same league.

Instead, players who took a long time to train salary efficient, well balanced high TSP players out of position (losing games due to this), as you advised them to do for 36 saisons, get a kick in the balls...just wrong.

3. Draft
I can see why a better talent pool in the draft is well received by many managers.
However, as long as so many star to superstar potential players are sold for 1k or waived after the draft you'll have a hard time to convince me the talent total was not already sufficient.

The underlying problem, that e.g. star potential players are not seen as worthwhile trainees (with Manon the notable exception) is in my opinion the training system. Make it slightly faster and more flexible with e.g. increased efficiency for 3 position training for a total of 9 players and those players will get more training.

4. New managers guide
Well done

5. Promotion system
Any additional influx of money into the BB economy is bad (promotion bonus).

Buzzer Beater is not an action game but a slow manager simulation that derives a large share of its populatity from social interactions between managers (game chat, forum, BB-mail). I fear that the proposed promotion system will turn into a total reshuffle of all leagues every 2 or 3 saisons killing all conections managers have to a certain league.
In Germany we have managers that play virtually their entire career in the same league and their stories on heroic play down wins to prevent demotion saison after saison despite old players and low funds are legendary.


Last edited by Robard at 12/12/2016 3:46:00 AM

The underlying problem, that e.g. star potential players are not seen as worthwhile trainees (with Manon the notable exception) is in my opinion the training system. Make it slightly faster and more flexible with e.g. increased efficiency for 3 position training for a total of 9 players and those players will get more training.

Star players have not been worthwhile in the past, only with the FAs gone and the global talent level declining they become valid options to train. It can still be debated wheter those players are useful on a DIV I-II level at all.

Any additional influx of money into the BB economy is bad (promotion bonus).

This could be the biggest problem long term, I think transfers north of 10mil, might become the standard in a few seasons.

After their decline due to old age the skillset of 4 of my 5 backup players would probably fit into star potential.
Once you create a possibility to train e.g. 9 star to allstar players at the same time and reasonable pace (to cap them at age 22) it will be competitive in terms of money to training 3 higher pot players.
Managers are not stupid, if you can get good income from low pot training they will do so, for their own team or for the market.

Foto, we had polls on specific features before. Like when people rejected the very sensible idea of an autobid function. We also had lenghty debates in global on other issues like that gigantic thread on micronations which is approaching 1000 posts. As you can see for promotion/demotion there are a lot of different views and suggestions and for secondary skills price hike and for boycott there are a lot of concerns which have not been addressed by either Marin in his post or any other member of staff.

Perpete as his usual reasonable self said he was in favour of a slightly different boycott change compared to the final one that has been implemented, so it's fair that he can't talk for others whose reasoning was different than his. And since there are 2 BBs and 2 EGMs, as far as I know, it makes sense that either you or Nickleon (if you both voted at least one of you must have voted in favour of this change) or, by all means, Marin explain what was the reasoning for choosing this solution over alternative ones.

How's my contribution to the forums so far on the changes, BTW? It's also interesting (and it's something you should think about) that reasonable people like Sensiman and Robard who have traditionally been on the staff's side on other issues in the past (while I was arguing the opposite) are quite critical of some of the changes this time.

Last edited by Lemonshine at 12/12/2016 6:36:23 AM

How's my contribution to the forums so far on the changes, BTW? It's also interesting (and it's something you should think about) that reasonable people like Sensiman and Robard who have traditionally been on the staff's side on other issues in the past (while I was arguing the opposite) are quite critical of some of the changes this time.

Well observed, feels a bit strange to be more or less on your side in this one ;)

If you could at least announce big changes in advance, this could help us adapt our strategies accordingly.