BuzzerBeater Forums

We welcome the opinion of everyone

Evidently some don't. Nowhere does it say the BBs are not interested in the opinions of those not in micro nations.

If you're not a manager from a micro-nation, please don't attempt to speak on the behalf of those that are.

They should have added that if you are from a micro nation please don't attempt to bully (an odd word for the small attacking the large but there you go) those from other nations into not speaking on this subject at all.

I think you're misrepresenting me more than a bit. I'm absolutely willing to be engaged with those who will discuss openly, and consider the *some* micro nation managers would like to retain some semblance of nation. In some fashion. What I'll be dismissive about is people stating (for the most part, from significantly larger nations) "You MUST do this (merge)". And just as you have the right to post, I have the right to form an opinion - and voice it.

Thus, I would argue the BBs were wrong to say they were most concerned with the opinions of those in micros, but as I already said, they didn't say macros, mediumos, belowaveragos and anyone else and their dog couldn't express their opinions. Just that it would carry less weight.

And I don't believe that anyone here has said that those you describe couldn't express said opinions.

I also think those people who are attempting to hold BB hostage by saying they'll quit if their beloved country is removed from BB should really get a grip. (I realise that's not you malice, I'm digressing)Its not like they're threatening to not let you play any more. And I've already said I wouldn't object if Trainerman's advice was followed and larger nations than micros (like mine) were also merged.

It is a reality tho'. I agree - attempting to ransom their involvement isn't exactly helping anyone... but I *DO* think that a lot of smaller-nation-users will bail if forced into this. It does appear the BBs are interested in trying to make this as positive as possible - I've never seen this level of discussion about a proposed change... but then I don't think there's ever been a change this large tabled before.

I'll say again, (because I can) that we should really be looking towards having similar sized leagues (Nations, Regions or whatever) so that we can all play in similar situations. In line with Trainerman's (and others') proposals.

I think once that happens, once we go the world Utopian route, then it's all becoming a bit too cookie cutter, too vanilla. I believe that the existence of many different world experiences is one of the things that makes BB... well... BB.

In addition to the relegation issues that other people have brought up, your proposal would still have a top league where managers from different countries would have to compete with each other. There have already been a couple of managers from these countries stating that this is unacceptable. How do you solve this?

When faced with the reality that appears before us (that a merge of some fashion is inevitable - and that's the way it appears at the moment), then this suggestion (I/trainerman together made a similar suggestion a few pages back) is more palateable than a flat merge. Nations are still maintained. Identity remains. You're just competing against more teams in a regional engagement.

In addition to the relegation issues that other people have brought up, your proposal would still have a top league where managers from different countries would have to compete with each other. There have already been a couple of managers from these countries stating that this is unacceptable. How do you solve this?

I hope that is a serious question. You -- Ryan and Marin -- solve it by considering the matter from the point of view of what is best for BB. Managers who are speaking from their own personal biases are not speaking from that point of view, they are merely giving you their own personal bias. I can understand you would wish to hear from all managers (not just micro-managers, by the way) and a public display of such an interest may go a long way toward winning support for changes you might make. But I also know that "inmates running the asylum" is widely considered an inefficient way to run a program.

You do realise that from the other side of the fence, this could be used to describe managers who are pushing the Borg collective scenario...

I’ve read through a good portion of the main thread over the past week or so and here’s how I would approach things. This is somewhat building off of the conversation I saw between Trainerman and Malice yesturday.

I’m going to use Asia as an example but you could take a similar approach to the other regions.

For this example, let’s assume the merging nations are (number of users): Japan (25), South Korea (3), Vietnam (6), Thailand (13), Indonesia (44), Malaysia (35), Singapore (44) and New Zealand (18).

The first season the top two teams from each country based on prior season performance are promoted to the new merged D1. Below that there is one D2 in each nation and then 4 D3, etc. If you have less than 8 countries then the larger countries get a third team to start, etc. If you give everyone notice of what will happen in advance they can plan their teams accordingly to try to earn one of the spots to the combined D1.

At the end of the season since there are 8 nations the bottom 8 non-playoff teams have to play a relegation/promotion 3 game series against one of the D2 league winners at a neutral location. The lowest performing D1 team based on record in the D1 league would play against the highest WR from the D2 winners, and so on. Winners would promote/remain in D1, losers would relegate down. If the league has less nations, say 5, then only the bottom 5 D1 teams would have to play a relegation series. No more than 8 nations can be in a merged league.

This means that after the first season there would be a chance that a nation has no one in the top league. Let’s use South Korea as an example since they only have 3 teams. Their top 2 teams are put into D1 the first season. They might both be weaker teams (I haven’t looked and don’t know so don’t troll me on this) and end up in the bottom 8 and they might both lose in the relegation series. At the same time, their top D2 team who gets a chance to play for promotion might also lose. Then the next season South Korea has no one in the top league. That should be OK, if they aren’t strong enough then that’s the way it goes. Their top team will always get a chance to join the D1 league each season.

Then, what happens if it’s a larger nation like Singapore that has both team s relegating and no one promoting. How do we balance their D2 to 16 teams? To solve this I think you run D2 relegation similar to Utopia where you have 6 or more teams subject to relegation each season and a balancing process to make it work.

Lastly, related to Buzzerbeater’s Best, a merger will significantly reduce the number of teams invited to B3 each season and it will be the micro-nation teams that are impacted. I would propose to increase the B3 invitations to include both the winner and the runner-up from each D1 and tournament. This will reduce the amount of lost spots for the micro-nation teams and will also open up more spots for the macro-nations who have many deserving teams. Also, I would propose that any team making the final 32 be automatically invited back to B3 for the next season.

This may not be perfect but I think it’s close to a good solution. I welcome anyone to comment or build on this.

you can decrease number of groups in DIVs ...
16 teams in DIV 1
16 teams in DIV 2 in one group
and ect ...
then with 48 teams in a country , we will have 3 active DIVs

the number of promoted teams of each group can be 4 teams ...

the last DIV will be DIV 5 ... 5x16=80 ... then a country with 80 teams will have 5 active DIVs

if the number off users further of 80 users , add a new group at DIV 5 ...

I describe my idea with a simulation :

0-80 users : 1 Div 1 , 1 Div 2 , 1 Div 3 , 1 Div 4 , 1 Div 5
81-96 users : 1 Div 1 , 1 Div 2 , 1 Div 3 , 1 Div 4 , 2 Div 5
97-144 users : 1 Div 1 , 1 Div 2 , 1 Div 3 , 2 Div 4 , 4 Div 5
145-256 users : 1 Div 1 , 1 Div 2 , 2 Div 3 , 4 Div 4 , 8 Div 5
257-496 users : 1 Div 1 , 2 Div 2 , 4 Div 3 , 8 Div 4 , 16 Div 5
497-976 users : 1 Div 1 , 4 Div 2 , 8 Div 3 , 16 Div 4 , 32 Div 5
977-1776 users : 1 Div 1 , 4 Div 2 , 16 Div 3 , 32 Div 4 , 64 Div 5
1777-3408 users : 1 Div 1 , 4 Div 2 , 16 Div 3 , 64 Div 4 , 128 Div 5
3409-5648 users : 1 Div 1 , 4 Div 2 , 16 Div 3 , 64 Div 4 , 256 Div 5

you can expand this formula to 6 or 7 Div ...

another Necessary Act is increase the income for lower Divs and Homogenization incomes for all off Divs or decrease the Difference between them ...

with this change , Iran with 63 user will has 4 active Divs and don't need too merge ...

sorry for bad English

Last edited by Misagh at 4/24/2016 5:55:23 AM

I think you're misrepresenting me more than a bit. I'm absolutely willing to be engaged with those who will discuss openly, and consider the *some* micro nation managers would like to retain some semblance of nation. In some fashion. What I'll be dismissive about is people stating (for the most part, from significantly larger nations) "You MUST do this (merge)". And just as you have the right to post, I have the right to form an opinion - and voice it.

I stand corrected. And thanks for putting that so mildly. I'm sure if I'd felt misrepresented I'd have been slightly more cutting.

And I don't believe that anyone here has said that those you describe couldn't express said opinions.

Someone has, but it wasn't you.

I *DO* think that a lot of smaller-nation-users will bail if forced into this. It does appear the BBs are interested in trying to make this as positive as possible - I've never seen this level of discussion about a proposed change... but then I don't think there's ever been a change this large tabled before.

There's a possibility though that new starters from those small nations might be more inclined to stay under the new paradigm. I think its impossible to know for sure whether its a plus or minus but I do know that if I'd signed up to a country with less than one full league, I wouldn't still be here now.

I think once that happens, once we go the world Utopian route, then it's all becoming a bit too cookie cutter, too vanilla. I believe that the existence of many different world experiences is one of the things that makes BB... well... BB.

I obviously don't want to say the merger MUST happen, but I feel there's a difference between a world Utopia, and around 20-30 regions, nations or whatever, and a one world league option. I also think retaining separate NTs balances some of the move towards a vanilla world. Frankly you've terrified me with the idea of a vanilla world, like you I wouldn't find that as interesting.

sorry for bad English

You don't need to apologise - it's absolutely understandable, and a good idea to boot! Ball for you.


@Brutus - you too bud. Nice expansion off the discussion. I'm all for any idea that retains some semblance of nation, but expands the competition.

I *DO* think that a lot of smaller-nation-users will bail if forced into this. It does appear the BBs are interested in trying to make this as positive as possible - I've never seen this level of discussion about a proposed change... but then I don't think there's ever been a change this large tabled before.

There's a possibility though that new starters from those small nations might be more inclined to stay under the new paradigm. I think its impossible to know for sure whether its a plus or minus but I do know that if I'd signed up to a country with less than one full league, I wouldn't still be here now.

Hmmm... I think the key thing for new users is to encourage them to have successes (wins, good trainees, ease of arena development), over competition. In many micro nations it was 'competition' (playing against superior opponents immediately) that scares 'em off.
(the idea of arena development is something I've pushed before - without any success. I think you should be able to demolish seating, at a cost of course, and rebuild in a different fashion).

I think once that happens, once we go the world Utopian route, then it's all becoming a bit too cookie cutter, too vanilla. I believe that the existence of many different world experiences is one of the things that makes BB... well... BB.

I obviously don't want to say the merger MUST happen, but I feel there's a difference between a world Utopia, and around 20-30 regions, nations or whatever, and a one world league option. I also think retaining separate NTs balances some of the move towards a vanilla world. Frankly you've terrified me with the idea of a vanilla world, like you I wouldn't find that as interesting.

The world as a whole group of Utopias would bore me no end. I keep playing my Ute team, but it's more out of habit than any sense of commitment. Part of the selling point (for me, at the very beginning at least) was the representative aspect - a concept of 'nation' (regardless of that community being made largely of foreign expats - as trainerman points out!). And apparently that's something that some here seek. I think that would very quickly become bland.

Last edited by malice at 4/24/2016 6:40:04 AM

really you worry for micro nation's users competition ??? :D

the macro nation's users are concern about our income ... with this way the income in our league will decrease and tanking will be harder ... in addition we dont merge with another country ...

are you sure all off your users are active ??? :D your good users are playing at Div 1 and 2 . with this way , Iran will has 2 good Divs ...

and about competition , I say yes ... it will increase ... be cause you can't tank easily and must fight for staying in high Div ...