BuzzerBeater Forums

True, but if we close in on the maximum possible for 18 yo of 70 TSP with a large number of draftees we will see the following: all draftees with less TSP are worthless and replace todays 40 TSP lot and second, pretty much all draftees will look the same skillwise.
Now, i consider this extremely bad as it kills variable builds e.g. PF with very low IS or PG with low JS etc.
Much better would be lower but very different starting skills (on todays level) with slightly increased training speed.

I agree with you. The proposed skill bump for draftees could even be eliminated if:

1) Training was significantly faster (at least 20-25%), or

2) Training was disconnected from positions and managers could train different players in skills (i.e. a PG in IS and a C in Passing) at the same time.

In fact, option 2wuld also solve the problem of every trainee having the same build because you could train customized builds very quickly.

The obvious winners are managers who've been able to save up their assets. In that sense, I have a lot to gain, but still think this is a terrible direction for the game.

True, but if we close in on the maximum possible for 18 yo of 70 TSP with a large number of draftees we will see the following: all draftees with less TSP are worthless and replace todays 40 TSP lot and second, pretty much all draftees will look the same skillwise.
Now, i consider this extremely bad as it kills variable builds e.g. PF with very low IS or PG with low JS etc.
Much better would be lower but very different starting skills (on todays level) with slightly increased training speed.

I agree with you. The proposed skill bump for draftees could even be eliminated if:

1) Training was significantly faster (at least 20-25%), or

2) Training was disconnected from positions and managers could train different players in skills (i.e. a PG in IS and a C in Passing) at the same time.

In fact, option 2wuld also solve the problem of every trainee having the same build because you could train customized builds very quickly.

And would also bring more competitiveness that they are talking about, because you could train customized players for strategies different than LI. Now even if you want to play something different its hard to find right players, 90% of transfer market are the LI ready players.

More competitiveness!! I don't see it. You should have merged Africa and Asia this season, not season 39 and beyond.
Just like BuzzerBeater to wait to long to fix something. Are you waiting to dip under 15,000 users before you take drastic measures? I hope not. 15,000 seems to be the POINT OF NO RETURN for Browser/sports manager games.

Training!! You need to do something about it. I finally got my good friend to play and he waited 3 weeks(21 days) for a training pop!(I even told him to train 1 on 1, I thought if he got some pops it would keep his interest but he went with outside shooting)! Long story short. His team is going bot as we speak. Maybe change the speeds for the different level trainers or lessen the training slow down on aging players. Add a secondary training for all players not being trained in the main training for that week.
Just my thoughts

I agree. The biggest issue is TRAINING. Online manager games are mostly about training and building. They are not about competing twice a week against bots.. It is not fun. Green pops are fun.
Training should be easily rehauled by leting managers train whatever they want wherever they want with penalties according to hight and age as nowadays. I am NT coach for 21 seasons and even senior managers still dont understand what current training means and how it works! Once beginers will see every friday that their acts actualy change something, they might stick around!! Easy the training!! There is no need to add starting points to draftees becose managers have their training spots full! Adding thousand new (better) players into the game will not help as there is no room for them where they could be trained. Market would wake up, fun would appear again.

Imo we could get rid of the 20 levels scale and replace it with a 100 points scale (of course ditch the nomenclature)

That way one pop every three weeks would become one pop every week, which is much more encouraging.

To me, making training easier to understand and easier to train players will have so many benefits. It will avoid most of issues this game has:
1) TANKING. With salary efficient rosters which are capable thank to new training system where everyone can train players to his needs tanking is no effective in results anymore. If training change itself doesnt prove sufficient, implement caps to f.ex. 1,2M for Div I., 1M for Div.II etc. to wipe tanking
2) OFFENSIVE VERSATILITY would be no problem anymore becose with new training system one could build up team accoridng to his needs. One could train passing to his C while ID to his SG and create his own way to top.. No need to restrict anything, more tactics and approachs will be seen.
3) TRANSFERLIST could become alive again
4) BEGGINERS could catch up earlier and wont face difficult mazes in manuals with training. More pops will keep them longer in game becose they will see the results of their jobs. Prices of players will decrease as there will be more trained players what also makes begginers easier to play and get to top.

Erase all the crapy salary floors, homegrown fees or whatever they are, thousand training options while only one works etc. Easy solutions which make the game easier to play.

Economists, now go get me.

Last edited by LA-zajino at 12/16/2016 6:16:04 AM

Is it safe to assume this will have only a limited impact above the allstar potential level?

Don't know this detail so I cannot say something sorry.

Really soon the addition in the Game Manual will be released and everyone will be able to see exactly how it will work. Of course its a fault from BB side that this hasn't been released earlier.

The explanation has been added to Game Manual under the ''Fan Survey'' paragraph.
(http://www.buzzerbeater.com/community/rules.aspx?nav=FanS...)

The game needs to become more simple to attract new users and whoever is responsible for the changes, manages to make rocket science out of it. I surrender to the unknown genius...

2.25+ million is the price of 1 starter these days, also in D2. At that level you lose 25%. 25% is enough to wipe out the profit of someone training with an expensive trainer.

Not only that, but it does not go away when you win! It's still there and decreasing irrespective of whether you win the next 3 games or not!!!!!! And from 50% to 0% by 5% each week it means it will stay for the entire season and that you will really lose a total of 275% of your gate receipts. Even if you win every single game after the 7th. How is that realistic and who conceived something like? Who are the genius who don't listen to Perpete? Was using a losing streak with PD thresholds too difficult to implement?

Also picture this Nickleon, because I guarantee it will happen. Someone is saving to buy a starter. He needs 5m because you guys inflated the economy on purpose. He loses the first 7 games and now is hit by the 40% reduction in gates. In the EBBL average gates = 510k. That means after the boycott gates will go to 306k on average. At that point your income is: 306k+50k merch+183k TV=539k. Salary floor is 442k. If you spend more than 97k in trainers you will pay the overextension tax. How cute. If you are at the floor and buy a 100k starter, you will definitely be in the red and you will most definitely pay the overextension tac. If things don't get better even then, you can't sell that starter or you lose a lot of money courtesy of the anti-daytrading tax.

Now consider this. The teams in the situation above will be not only tanking teams, but teams with key injuries and teams training who aren't trying to lose but don't manage to win. Do you think this is fair? Or do you have plans to change training and remove injuries? Then...some people have 3 and some have 4 home games in the first and last third of the season, what are you going to do about that? remove HCA?

These measures are anti-losing not anti-tanking, call things for what they are. People can lose for a lot of different reasons. I lost the first 8 games last season and had a winning record thereafter. I had a team that would have been in the playoffs if I didn't train and I had a long injury plus a failed sale (the idiotic GS hit when you repurchase your own player). This was enough to put me together with a team who lost every game by 40 points in the other conference. Come on, you can do better than this.

Now you're going to make the game harder for people adapting to higher leagues or training or who are just unlucky with injuries. You will actually put them in the red. Technically the stupidity in this measures is evident also by the fact that people can get to the cumulative 50% if they have 1.5 million in the bank. Makes me want to open a D3 farm, like the ones Wolph kept ranting about: I wouldn't have to worry about anything.

Also I retract the 'mildly inflationary effect' I said before. This is very inflationary as a lot of teams will no wins will feel like they should buy.

Last edited by Lemonshine at 12/16/2016 1:54:17 PM