BuzzerBeater Forums

I do believe we are suffering from the exact same thing as the HT GM is explaining

That we are indeed.

Ok apologies for misrepresenting your position. I think we mostly agree (even Malice and Trainerman) that some action will need to be taken at some point as running full bot leagues (and very small nations more likely to end up as full bot nations than blooming) doesn't make much sense.

To be honest I hope that the HT experiment Manon mentioned shows that an app can be successful in strengthening the userbase and BuzzerBeater goes in the same direction and with an even bigger success. This will automatically remove the micronation problem in a lot of cases.

Last edited by Lemonshine at 1/23/2015 8:09:58 PM

I didn't give threshold numbers to which nations could be deleted. In fact, I don't really care about Pakistan who never had enough users. When I'm talking about deleting nations as a possible solution (from an external POV), I'm talking about the nations under 20 (or any other threshold). With some thinking of course.

So how about a policy to not add new users in Pakistan or other 0 user countries. Put them in the nearest country. Some of our users are from Bangladesh and Sri Lanka; we could add Pakistan also.

Ok apologies for misrepresenting your position. I think we mostly agree (even Malice and Trainerman) that some action will need to be taken at some point as running full bot leagues (and very small nations more likely to end up as full bot nations than blooming) doesn't make much sense.

To be honest I hope that the HT experiment Manon mentioned shows that an app can be successful in strengthening the userbase and BuzzerBeater goes in the same direction and with an even bigger success. This will automatically remove the micronation problem in a lot of cases.

First part - the "full bot leagues" doesn't really concern me, as I really don't know the implications or situations involved - that is a BB/GM issue. I don't think that Nippon fits into that category at all. It's a "smaller nation"... but it has a strong core of fairly dedicated managers, with a reasonably strong div 1 (regardless of disparagement that may occur) and NT/U21 programs that perform relatively well...

Second part, I've been on HT for a number of years now (apparently, I started 8th of August, 2011), and have the HT app... I use it sparingly. Well... ok: not at all. I've found with a smartphone it's significantly easier to just use a browser. I don't see it as the Grail everyone believes it to be.

Last edited by malice at 1/23/2015 9:30:30 PM

I don't see it as the Grail everyone believes it to be.

I have this doubts as well, however I've no idea what else would be more effective in luring new players.

Last edited by Lemonshine at 1/23/2015 9:37:17 PM

especially having had my first taste of B3 last season!!!

Congratulations about that

Cheers. Playing again this season - but my draw is absolutely hideous. I think I'll probably perform worse than last season.

It's simply a reality of the majority of pastimes that eventually, we move on. For the most part.

I think we all agree on this. The same way we all agree that if the system is indeed responsible for accelerating this process, the system should be tweaked and changed, where possible, so that it produces fewer negative effects. What you are disputing and arguing about with Trainerman is whether the system does have worse results in micronations than normal nations.

My concern is that you would actually lose more users. Hypothetical (because I'm too lazy to look up actual numbers): is it better for the game to combine a group of 6 nations with say... an average user-base of 18 - make them into a single group and end up with 78 users and lose players because of the loss of an identity? Having started at the very end of S14, (whilst not as long as some) I guess I now fit in the category of "die-hard", and I'm quite active. My interest levels would be diminished if I were to be put into a "Eastern Asia" grouping, losing our national identity. What then of currently peripheral players? Sure, the resulting competition might be a stronger league... but you just lost 25% of that geographical region's population, and are even less likely to be able to attract more users (not addressing any inherent issues of the amalgamation)!

I've said this over and over, but *new-player-placement* is a far, far bigger issue (and MUCH simpler fix!) than any supposed problem of smaller nations. If we want to talk about how to improve player retention, sign me up. But wielding a hammer on already existing nations isn't part of that.

I don't see it as the Grail everyone believes it to be.

I have this doubts as well, however I've no idea what else would be more effective in luring new players.

I don't think BB needs to lure more players. I think they need to better retain the new players they get.

Part of the issue I see is how competitive a new player is. Everyone that starts a new game (whatever it is, on whatever platform) wants to enjoy a modicum of success early on. That's why most PC/PS?/X-Box games have a tutorial system built in at the beginning of gameplay. Recently, I played Shadow of Mordor (great game) - they didn't pitch me in headlong to hack 'n slay immediately, they walked me through the game systems within the story so that I could learn. Missions get incrementally more difficult (don't get me started on the final boss missions tho'!!! Anyway... I digress...), you learn as you go - and the more difficult tasks don't occur until much later in the game's timeline.

BB doesn't necessarily do that, at least not with every player. The REAL problem with Buzzerbeater's retention is that new players get put into the highest league with an available opening - and this is at it's most damaging in the smaller nations we're discussing. Ostensibly it's to maintain a 'real manager' presence in higher leagues, what it ends up doing is pitching someone with zero experience against some of the better managers in that region with no experience and without the tools to be able to cope. As it is, you get the absolute crapola beat outta you right away. Why hang around for that?
The thing is, the problem would be solved once the season ends, via bot clean-out and promotions. What I propose is that users have their first league be the lowest available in that nation. That would ensure a reasonable amount of
'forgiveness' when making mistakes, and create an environment where a person would enjoy some successes immediately.
So... if you do that then a higher league might have a bot (or maybe two) for part of a season. Big deal. If it came with the bonus of having a stronger nation (more users) - I'm on board.

Japan experiences this on a fairly regular basis. Someone in JBBL quits mid-season, we end up with a new user - and within a month they bail.
It's simply a pretty daunting experience to have in your first weeks of a new game, when your opinion on said game is still in the formative process.

Last edited by malice at 1/23/2015 9:59:24 PM

I've said this over and over, but *new-player-placement* is a far, far bigger issue (and MUCH simpler fix!) than any supposed problem of smaller nations. If we want to talk about how to improve player retention, sign me up. But wielding a hammer on already existing nations isn't part of that.

I agree with you. I would add that for a new user, there is a lot of incomprehensible mumbo-jumbo, which when finally understood turns out to be completely illogical (I am thinking of training here), and very little systematic clear explanation of a lot of it. I am sure that is not optimal for new users, either, and unfortunately not so easy to fix..

I also share your skepticism about the "supposed problem of smaller nations" as you put it. I try to imagine this thread, for example, without the incessant din of complaints from one user ... crickets. Where's the real problem?