BuzzerBeater Forums

In the past few (or more than few) days, I've taken a look at the status of few first leagues on BB.
I've wanted to verify whether BB is competative for new users.

I had the feeling that due to the fact that each year a user adds assets (Player's value, Arena size, money, etc.) to his team, each year the difference between old teams to newer teams just grows.
By that, the game becomes uncompetative for new users.

I've suggested few ideas for improving its competativeness, and by that not scaring out newbies.
I hope that BB will take action about that, as it is one of the most important issues on this game.

Here are some of the information I've gathered during this invstigation;
1) Bundesliga (GM-CrazyEye's league), the "Great 8" conference - there was not one team who is newer than season 4!
14 season had passed from season 4, and NONE had been able to get to this league.

2) ABBL (Monkeybiz's league) - I saw that (in the ABBL) there where newer teams. The newest is currently from season 10.
So, I've wanted to take a look what have happened to the teams played there on season 4 (again, just the "great 8" conference).
Most of the teams tha played on that conference at that season (4), just left the game - after they where relegated, or prior to that.
Some had been there just for one season, and basically where not good enough.

Summarizing - It seems that there is a problem with the competativeness system on BB.
I think that action needs to be taken for making it more competative.
In USA, on different leagues, an Hard cap and a Soft cap are being used just for that.
There are other means for making the game more competative - reseting assets after few seasons, sudden loses of players (richer teams will lose players that cost more), etc.

Last edited by Pini פיני at 11/06/2011 09:18:29

I agree there is huge imbalance in this game. Even weak manager who joined to BB earlier can develop his team faster than good manager, who joined later.
Staff, scouting and arena expansion cost the same on every level (even Transfer List is the same for everybody) whilst differences between incomes are collosal (TV contracts, marchendise and incomes from tickets). Only salaries can decrease this difference.
So my diagnosis of problem is the same as yours.
But I have completly different opinion about hard or soft cap. I think cap in this game would be the worst thing, it would make difference even larger. Then "older" teams would waste their money slower and slower so "younger" teams would need more time to catch them up.

I assume you have not read Charles's posts that touch this topic: (129389.248), (129389.249), (129389.250). They are worth reading IMO.

Last edited by GM-WallyOop at 11/06/2011 10:11:31

But I have completly different opinion about hard or soft cap. I think cap in this game would be the worst thing, it would make difference even larger. Then "older" teams would waste their money slower and slower so "younger" teams would need more time to catch them up.

In case they will "waste" less, which is buying players in this case, their team will be weaker by definition. A weaker team is easier to overcome.

Again, the NBA (for example) proves that they don't do that. They will use thier money in order of competing with the others.

As not all of the teams will act the same - some will go over the soft-cap - I don't see the others seating with their hands on their pocket and giving the games easily to those who will go over the cap.

And again, there are other means - reseting all the assets once in few seasons, etc.

Let me state that you are from the first division, so your opinion is a little biased against ideas that will make the game a more competative.

Last edited by Pini פיני at 11/06/2011 11:57:48

It's a little misleading saying the game isn't competitive for new users. It is, provided you measure yourself against those in the same league. If you're going to measure new users against NBBA teams, they are bound not to measure up.

Your argument that no team has been able to break into a specific conference might not necessarily be a big issue. Those teams have been playing longer, had more time to invest in developing their economy and account balance. To remove what would be careful planning on their part would be even more unfair, no?

If an older team mismanages and a younger team has brilliant management which results in the younger team surpassing the older team, fair enough. Which is the way things are today. But if both the older and younger team are brilliant managers, then it will be difficult as the gap is always there. There will be a time when both the newer and older teams match up on equal terms, the closer they are to the economic point of zero returns. Of course, some teams choose to run on a deficit budget and make a try for glory, but let's discount non-sustainable strategies for now.

Let me state that you are from the first division, so your opinion is a little biased against ideas that will make the game a more competative.

Let's treat everyone's opinion with respect instead of making such simplistic assumptions.

I'm sure that if cap is implementing - it will be helpful for older teams and it will make competition for younger teams harder than now.
Older team still would have advantage because their players would have better secondaries, experience, etc. But their salaries will be the same as salaries of younger team ;-)
So BB without cap is great information for younger teams. Without cap difference between older and younger clubs should decrease faster.
Trust me, I'm on Your side, I know something about competition with older clubs ;-)

It's a little misleading saying the game isn't competitive for new users. It is, provided you measure yourself against those in the same league. If you're going to measure new users against NBBA teams, they are bound not to measure up.

It is not what was said. It was said that a new user will not be able to get to that level due to this difference, as my examples showed.

Your argument that no team has been able to break into a specific conference might not necessarily be a big issue. Those teams have been playing longer, had more time to invest in developing their economy and account balance. To remove what would be careful planning on their part would be even more unfair, no?

So what your saying is that in those 4 seasons the best managers where the seasons that the best german managers joined the game, and on all the other 13 seasons, all the managers just does not know how to build a team?
Sounds not realy reliable... saying the least.

I'm sure that if cap is implementing - it will be helpful for older teams and it will make competition for younger teams harder than now.
Older team still would have advantage because their players would have better secondaries, experience, etc. But their salaries will be the same as salaries of younger team ;-)
So BB without cap is great information for younger teams. Without cap difference between older and younger clubs should decrease faster.
Trust me, I'm on Your side, I know something about competition with older clubs ;-)

Basically you just repeated the same that you've already written before, w/o relating to whot I've wrote in response.

So, let's focus on a single argument;
Adding an assets reset once every few seasons is another option I've written.

Last edited by Pini פיני at 11/06/2011 12:56:17

So what your saying is that in those 4 seasons the best managers where the seasons that the best german managers joined the game, and on all the other 13 seasons, all the managers just does not know how to build a team?
Sounds not realy reliable... saying the least.

I never said all the managers in the past 13 seasons didn't know how to build a team, you did as quoted above.

I said that the managers who joined early and remained on top are there for a reason, because they are the best. And they are the best by virtue of having a plan and executing it to get favourable results. Newer teams have already surpassed a fair amount of managers who joined in the first 4 seasons. But to beat the best?

Let me simplify it. Think of it as a race and everyone is running their own racecar. Obviously, if you start earlier you get the advantage of running a certain distance before other racers start their engines. Now, if you're slow (Not a good manager), faster racers will eventually overtake you. If you're fast, and am at least as fast as the racer trying to catch you, the gap will always be there. You will just have to wait until he makes a mistake before you can try to overtake. You don't go to the race stewards and ask that the guy in front has to drive slower.


But in BB there is a point where newer teams will compete on equal terms. It's the economic tipping point of zero return. If you get your roster to the point where you're paying so much in salaries that you're barely making a profit, you're already competing on equal footing with the best teams. Except those running non-sustainable deficit economies.