BuzzerBeater Forums

I voted against for none of those reasons. I like the one team per person idea. For example, I'm torn whether I should start training with my team, or should stick with my strategy of not training and maximizing my money to buy players. If I get a secondary team, I definitely won't change my strategy with my primary team, and will simply use my secondary team to enjoy the training aspect of the game. In other words, the second team will effect what strategies I use for my primary team. And I won't run my secondary with what I perceive to be the best strategy, but will use it to do things I'm not able to do with my primary team. With one team per person, using one strategy, is the death of trying out other strategies. It adds risk and makes the game more interesting, in my opinion. There is no back up team, no fall back plan.

Love this as the solution.

Again, and I can't stress this enough, there would be no in-game benefits for supporters. In fact, not being a pay-to-win game, is probably the main virtue of BuzzerBeater.

This would not be changed by second teams. I don't know what did you mean in your post, why would you think that finances and rosters of the two teams would be connected? More money, more training slots??

It's only possible to make an argument about trying different team-building strategies, but bear in mind that you would have to wait 14 weeks between closing your team, and opening a new one. See, BB-Marin already thought of this, kudos to him. If you miss strategy, dig yourself into a hole, it's probably going to take a season or two to reboot the franchise and try something different. So I don't think it's that big deal. Private leagues, for example, are probably much better training grounds than the second teams would be.




Last edited by Aleksandar at 1/14/2014 7:10:00 PM

I am not a supporter but I agree with the new feature (even though I voted "no"). I think the new feature is to be tested before we can judge it, and the good thing of a virtual environment is that if something's wrong it can be easily removed.

Some of you make good points, and I agree with you. Others I disagree with, but I can see their argument. But I say, I do not want to play in a country where I can't communicate with the other managers of that league.

I am not a supporter but I agree with the new feature (even though I voted "no"). I think the new feature is to be tested before we can judge it, and the good thing of a virtual environment is that if something's wrong it can be easily removed.

How would we test it.
It's almost impossible.

Also yes, I think all the cheating scenarios, that people came up with here, are way overblown. I don't think any evil, massively executed plots would be realized. As BB-Marin stated, it would be harder to cheat with second teams.

For example, the draft sabotage thing? Really, say 300 Greek managers(THE SPARTANS), creating secondary teams in say Poland, ruining top draft prospects? First off, unlikely, second, how about BBs introducing a simple one-sentence rule: "It is forbidden to abuse the second team option". GMs will ban anyone who is breaking this rule.

Marin said it will be harder to cheat, simply because both of you teams get banned in case of illegal operations, so people won't risk their main accounts. For example, it's way easier to create multiple accounts in your country, and then buy and ruin the top draft picks off the transfer list.

Two nations training players for each other? You can do that now, by creating a farm team.

Bottom line, and BBs and GMs will support my statement, is that cheating will always be possible. And it will be dealt with. Second teams won't cause an anarchy.