BuzzerBeater Forums

Smallest communities are getting smaller anyway. Players are quitting because they find playing the same teams and bots every season gets boring.

I'm not tied to Micronations, 99th Country, or Separate Server idea. I think they all could work, but all have pros and cons.

But it is interesting to hear your point of view from South Africa, where there are only 8 users. You would not want to open South Africa to users from other countries, even if it meant less Bots, and more competition. Could you describe your point of view, so that we can understand the concerns of micronation managers?

I believe supporters have a big enough advantage by being able to play in private leagues (and all the other features of course). If you make too many options only available to supporters the rest of us will feel like we are playing a demo version of the actual game...

Excellent argument. You give a great reason for why secondary teams should be added to the game. BuzzerBeater is a great free game and this change would make it feel like a demo version of an even greater game.

I believe supporters have a big enough advantage by being able to play in private leagues (and all the other features of course). If you make too many options only available to supporters the rest of us will feel like we are playing a demo version of the actual game...

Excellent argument. You give a great reason for why secondary teams should be added to the game. BuzzerBeater is a great free game and this change would make it feel like a demo version of an even greater game.

Sorry that makes no sense at all

I think adding second teams wouldn't take much away from non-supporters, but it will make supporter seem much better, making non-supporters want to become supporters.

I have banners in my bb pages, you haven´t because you pay... so the income you do to bb are direct, i do inderect... but i do... i just believe i can play for free, becuase there are many ways to get incomes...

I don't think revenue from Supporters and Non-Supporters is equal. I think Supporters contribute approximately 10x or 20x the amount of revenue for each Non-Supporter. This is my own assumption, as I don't work for BB. I wanted to mention this, because I think it's dangerous to think the game receives just as much revenue from each type of player (Supporter and Non-Supporter). That type of thinking might make someone incorrectly assume "the game doesn't need Supporter revenue, because the game gets ad revenue anyway."

Supporter per year = $39.99.

Ad Revenue per year (my assumption) = probably between $1.00 - $4.00 per year per user. Facebook's annual advertising revenue per monthly user is estimated at $5.70 in 2013. In 2008 it was $2.68. While I know BB isn't Facebook, it has some similarities of users logging on frequently and spending time on multiple pages with each login. FB bombards users with ads though, and advertisers on FB know they're getting much more exposure than 31,000 users. So, let's estimate that BB's ad revenue is less than FB, but we'll give BB an optimistic guess of $2.00 per year per user.

$39.99 is a LOT more than $2.00.

Ad revenue reference:
http://www.trefis.com/stock/fb/articles/216618/maryhow-fa...

I'm not saying everyone has to be a Supporter. Some cannot afford it. But BB should consider prudent moves to attract new Supporters, convince existing Supporters to re-subscribe, and attract existing Supporters to contribute more revenue (1/2 price Supporter package for 2nd team). A proposal for a 2nd team does all of those things, without giving any in-game advantage to paying customers. It's a brilliant idea.

I never said it´s the same incomes both ways... obviously who pays supporter gives much more, and have to recieve much more... but in my opinion, the second team breaks the rule that says supporter haven´t advantages on no-supporter users, because 2 rises or two optiones to win a cup in 1 season is the double... i don´t talk about teams, i´m talking about users... Breaks the equality rule... Supporters may have many things that no-supporters don´t, but there is a line that never can be crossed... I think the line is this.

There are a lot of things to give to supporters before give a second team.

ii just believe i can play for free, becuase there are many ways to get incomes...

What makes you believe that? The are only four ways you can play it for free:
- BB developers do it as a gift for you (for what ever reason)
- You are a close relative to BB developers and they love you
- Somebody else pay for you for what ever reason
- You are needed here because without critical mass of players it will not be interesting for those who pay

As you can see none of this four is really for free as somebody else has to pay for what ever reason and fourth is just a really upsetting reason to get it for free.

You always choose your own.

You brought up a very good point - micronations a lot already have "foreign" managers for their NT teams - the only issue as I see it is that the influx of supporter managers will infringe on the fiefdom of the small number native managers that lackadaisically manage their teams will a minimal concern of defeat or relegation. That to me is the real issue - change that will actually light the fires of competition. And truly how many managers will actually take up a second team - certainly not 100%. And of those that accept how many will actually flood one small nation?? Unlikely that all will go to one place. The answer is clear - a second team that will be operated by some (most) supporters will beef up competition in those moribund communities. Larger nations will have nothing to fear - most players that opt for second teams will not invade in a tsunami of inscriptions those larger nations. As for cheaters - welcome to the human race - cheaters have always existed and will always exist, this is a non issue. Let's evolve and embrace change not fear it.