BuzzerBeater Forums

As evidenced, in BB-countries with low number of users, veteran managers (registered on BB 10 years ago for example) apply for the manager job of those national teams. That's ok! In BB system, if more than one manager has applied for a job, if no votes are received (due to low activity and low number of users in that BB-country), a manager which has registered to BB first takes a seat of national team.

However, the problem is, and it happens over and over again - even though the elected "vetaran" NT head coach has mediocre results and obvious disinterest to make changes in that country, stays in seat. New managers apply, write on the election speech thread etc. Unsuccessfully!

Please, try to find a solution for this (for extra small country with fewer than 10 users). Negative votes system where second manager on the list takes the seat once popularity of manager drops below 25%(?) and by some percentage of active managers - simply don't apply here! Due to low activity of managers.

Yes, I agree. But I have never said that those managers are good. I have said the the current system in which user who has registered in 2008 or 2009, can be eternal manager of that national teams of small countries without even trying. That needs to be changed.

It is up to community to suggest how that can be changed for good. The first thing which comes to my mind is restriction on consecutive terms (2 max), but also another election system to prevent the following:" if zero_votes_in_total then nt_manager=oldest_candidate "

It is up to community to suggest how that can be changed for good. The first thing which comes to my mind is restriction on consecutive terms (2 max), but also another election system to prevent the following:" if zero_votes_in_total then nt_manager=oldest_candidate "

I disagree with the first one. I have been managing Korea NT for a lot of seasons now and I followed all my current players since their early years. It has been difficult first seasons, but I helped developped those players and we are having good results (for the size of this nation) and probably the best korean team ever. There is no proof than someone talented would have replaced me after two terms and I'm welcoming skilled users to participate with the korean community and players to prove they could be better than me (which is highly possible), but being forced to surrender the position wouldn't be good for Korea NT.

A possible alternative to "oldest candidate wins" would be "best World Ranking wins", but you would still have chasing NT position users. Especially as now you can see who are candidates. In the end, you have to accept the fact that if users are elected that way, it's because nobody voted, so the interest for the local NT is null.

You can't generalize the situation based on your (positive) experience and say that the current system is perfectly OK. I'm saying about the bad managers who have no interest in developing these micro nations NTs once they are elected. That needs to change.

(bold) So, that's a legitimate excuse once the elected manager ruins the team further, or do nothing to improve it?

P.S. Also, your alternative suggestion is less bad option than the current one, IMO.

Last edited by AirWolf at 4/14/2018 7:55:33 AM

Don't get offended too fast, nobody's gonna take your precious seat. From the game manual:
-------------------------------------------
Manager Popularity (NT's)
Dissatisfied with your national team manager's performance? Express your opinion by casting your vote on whether you approve or disapprove of the way he or she has been handling the team, using the Manager Popularity box on the team's overview page. For the benefit of the National Team and the community as a whole, if more than 10% of the users per country will vote negatively and reduce the popularity of the national team manager under 25%, a replacement procedure is automatically starting (with next-in-line election candidate being used as a substitute) . For countries with less than 100 users a minimum number of 10 votes needed to kick off the procedure. The procedure will not take place only in cases when there are no available candidates for replacement.
------------------------------------------------------

Currently, there are 98 nations in BB World, of which 36 nations have 100 or more users, 21 nations between 20 and 100 users and a total of 41 with less than 20 users!

A current system (procedure for bad managers) functions like this:
Nations with more than 100 users (36) - if more than 10% of active users vote negatively AND total popularity drops below 25%, a procedure is kicked electing second-best ranked manager in elections.

Nations below 100 users (62) - if at least 10 negative votes are collected AND total popularity drops below 25%, a procedure is kicked electing second-best ranked manager in elections. There needs to be updated game manual to clarify is the second criteria needed.

A new proposed system (procedure for bad managers) would function like this:
Nations with more than 100 users (36) - if more than 10% of active users vote negatively AND total popularity drops below 25%, a procedure is kicked electing second-best ranked manager in elections.

Nations between 20 and 100 users (21) - if at least 10 negative votes are collected AND total popularity drops below 25%, a procedure is kicked electing second-best ranked manager in elections. There needs to be updated game manual to clarify is the second criteria needed.

Nations below 20 users (41!) - if at least 50% of active users vote negatively AND total popularity drops below 25%, a procedure is kicked electing second-best ranked manager in elections. There needs to be updated game manual to clarify if the second criteria is needed. Now, it is difficult to interpret.

I don't know if this was done purposely, but it is too hard to get bad manager sacked if a country has 5 or 15 active users and 10 negative votes are needed for change. Also, when electing a manager, oldest first should be replaced with highest ranking first. What do you say on these two proposals? And why?

Also, when identifying good candidate managers for small countries, neither your or mine opinion matter, but of active players in those countries. However, what we can possibly agree on that matter is that best ranking first is probably better option than oldest manager first where there were no votes given.

I really think that we can eventually agree on this one. That the opinions of active managers in those countries should matter the most. If however no votes were given, the proposed solution above should replace the current one.

Also, in most cases even those active managers in small countries do not know where to vote (for reasons of lack of knowledge of all game functions). The solution for this is an active notification in news section above development calendar with link to the election page - while the election is in progress. That is a way to animate them to vote.

Last edited by AirWolf at 4/14/2018 10:42:06 AM

Thanks Perpete! :-)

Also, please leave a vote and opinion if needed here: http://www.buzzerbeater.com/community/forum/read.aspx?thr.... I have created a new thread for the sake of summarizing and poll.

I would agree that Oldest doesn't necessary means Best. Most of the time it isn't.
So when no votes are casted, or when both managers receives equal number of votes, I think the tie-braker should be the World Rank.

If I'm in a small country and have no clue who to vote, most probably I would go with the world rank.