BuzzerBeater Forums

Yes, ID not OD, sorry. Edited it now.

"Marin why using discord instead the official page to comunicate with the users?
A: Discord is a modern chat option, one of many used by most companies to talk to their customers. It is more convenient and is a standard today. When we build an in-website alternative that's good enough, we can switch back. In the meantime, we will try to keep the forums alive too."

The BB teams's responsibility is to the entire user base. Never once was it mentioned that all future official game news will be posted on Discord first. This website is outdated, yes, fair, but it is still the team's job to ensure as many users see official news as possible. The old site is not an excuse to ignore this basic responsibility. Nothing was posting in News until yesterday. Nothing was posted on the landing page, manage my team page, or training page. I am sure Justin may even have stickied a note in the app if you asked him to.

Foto reposted Discoed stuff here in the forums and says he will continue to do so. That is appreciated but its also the bare minimum. His first thread wasnt even pinned or labeled official or anything.

Q1: Do you think the team did a good job communicating this massive news to as many users as possible? with time for them to prepare?

Q2: Why is the team so averse to a 3-5 season roadmap? The logic that discord is "industry standard" hence why it was used, is fine logic. But please use that same logic elsewhere. Roadmaps are industry standard. And in a game that is VERY long term, a loose roadmap with a general direction would help users relax and let them focus their mental energy elsewhere in the game.

Contrary to your claim, or a hasitly made poll, we like changes and have been clammoring for some of these for a long time. What users dont like, is a rugpull, or to feel like they were put in a disadvategous position through some form of negligence.

For a game this small and a team this small, comms should be better.

Hi @GM-Sergio and @BB-Marin,

Thank you for opening this Q&A thread

1. The 25M Reserve: A Strategic Championship Window, Not "Dead Cash"
Official policy often views large treasury reserves as stagnant liquidity. However, in BB's reality of long 4-to-6 season training cycles, holding 25M was never about hoarding—it represents a Championship Window after years of patient rebuilding. In a market lacking high-quality player supply, using heavy taxes to force spending will only cause artificial, irrational inflation on the transfer market rather than genuine economic vitality.

2. Fixing the SB Loophole at the Expense of Innocent 3D Trainees
We understand the developers' intent to address the historical "low-cost SB + 3-2 Zone" meta. However, heavily penalizing Shot Blocking and dual-defense across the board has created severe collateral damage. Many managers spent years meticulously crafting low-salary, high-efficiency 3D role players, only to see weekly salaries jump by $30k–$50k overnight. Once jump-shot and range are added, their salaries will rival those of National Team players. Imposing such heavy holding costs on specialized 3D builds to fix a tactical flaw is a far too costly trade-off.

3. Social Mobility vs. Growing the Player Base: The True Direction Forward
If the goal is to improve the experience for newer managers by reducing cash hoarding and increasing market liquidity... the reality is that new player retention fails not because Division I teams hold 25M reserves, but due to onboarding friction, aging UI, and a lack of external outreach.

Rather than imposing tighter constraints on loyal, long-term managers and forcing everyone into a homogenized arms race, the development team should focus resources on external outreach and expanding the player base! For example, implementing a referral program where managers earn Supporter status when invited friends register and stay active. Injecting fresh blood is the true foundation of market vitality.

💡 Conclusion: What Kind of BuzzerBeater Do We Want to See?
We appreciate the developers' intention to keep the market active. However, diverse roster-building strategies, the sense of achievement in long-term planning, and the freedom to choose your team's development direction are the core values that have sustained BuzzerBeater for over a decade. Any policy adjustment should preserve space for these varied playstyles, rather than continuously shrinking the survival space for different tactical mindsets.

I welcome everyone's constructive thoughts on this!

You mention "logical builds that fit player archetypes better" as your goal. It's important to have clarity on what your desired goal is, what does "player archetypes" mean for you?

Is it: PG = passer, SG = scorer, SF = defender(?), PF = Inside scorer, C = Shotblocker?

I feel like the NBA has a lot more bigs who can pass and shoot 3s like Jokic, tall guards who can do it all like Scottie Barnes, and is moving towards a break from traditional archetypes.

Informing and wanting to know your thoughts about several areas in "man to man vs 3-2 zone" topic

In real life basketball around 70-80 of inside shots are defended by bigmen. Of course they play differently than bb, cause they use less zones and more tactics like drop coverage, switching, doubling and so on. Do bb bigs in man to man defend similar percentage of inside shots? I do think 3-2 should have more inside shots defended by bigs than man to man, but man to man should still reach atleast 70 percent. It is one of reasons why 3-2 is so reliable - bigs defend post

Another aspect in regards to man to man is if OD is "nerfed" on bigs, then there appears exploit where opponents can sometimes put their shooter at c/pf on offense and abuse bigs. Sort of like how reverse patient was. Man to man would remain inferior to 3-2. Fix coud be to add tactical option of switching on defense not just based on positions, but also on opponents players


Rebounding now depends on energy. Does that mean that young trainees who have to play 48 min will also lose out on this? That just makes training even more difficult. Are there any plans to lower minutes requirement to 36, so that managers can stop putting players for 48 min in a game?

Shot blocking being too strong in combination of 3-2 zone could have been solved rather easy by just finding way how to make shot blocking on jump shots less effective & "bigs" breaking 3-2 zone with ability to shoot easier than in past.

If you want realism, having modern basketball would mean that centers and especially every PF can shoot 32-38% for 3 on high volumen. Against modern 3-2 zone, teams just switch to 4-1 offense and by default one of bigs gets wide open, or elite passers break zone with interior pass through zone.

Lot of us, who are in mist of expensive rebuilds ( hall of fame potential players, paid real money at age of 18-19, + expensive max head coaches + seasons spent in training ) are now feeling screwed over with new patch because we selected and trained players based on old tactics, and now training is:
1) harder due progressive fatigue
2) slower, due changes
3) selecting players based on skills that now have different cost levels leaves us in really bad spot


Overall, if you want more realism, your actual aim should have been to find ways how to make OD & SB less effective, to not have 68-78 games, and more of actual basketball games, with +100 points scored every game.
Also it's hard to talk about realism when you have so many players out there with +165 skill level. Basically every A tear team has his own version of Lebron.

Also main reason why so many teams in meta had shotblockers comes from sheer fact that having well balanced PF/C with inside scoring AND inside defense being 20 or higher costed too much. It's your salary calculation that caused high end role players ( like 20 SB, 20 ID, 2 jumpshot , 8 inside shot ) not other way around.
Also in personal experience, "all around Cs" neither were good at defense nor offense, but costed crazy money. That's why nobody wanted to us them.

Needless to say, you have issue with "elite passing" that costs crazy money, yet has almost ne practical effect in game. Hence, as we talk, there are only 13 players on market that have passing over 16, and all of them are either centers or terrible players. That's yet another way how you could have solved low scoring & super unrealistic impact of OD & SB. By simply making passing offset them. But no.

Not picking on you, but I don't understand what's with the realism and 165+ players. Surely, you don't want to give the richest 10-15 teams the best players and call it a fair fight? This is normal if you are playing a multiplayer game because everybody wants to be involved or at least have a shot.

I agree (some strongly) with the other points but I have seen the high-skilled players complaints on discord, as well.

Hello

It’s 2-4 real life year to get that 165+ player . If 15 people have it out of,13k thousand members in the game. what the complaint really?

A few miss mistake in training that player never reaches over 125+. 140 if ur lucky , & its not free ,upfront cost, Is 7 million+. this. Is before you even created anything., that nothing to sneeze at. Then 2-4 real life years creating the player.! With no mistakes

Team salaries increasing every week, trainers , stamina game shape.. not easy!!! Those 15 top manager or whom ever earned it.. so yes, i want them to have it, if they earned it..

Last edited by Big city at 8/10/2026 12:48:41 PM