BuzzerBeater Forums

i think if im not mistaken

the way i understand local players will be 10-20% better economically is that they are cheaper by 10-20% on their salary

i could be wrong but the way i understand is, if a normal australian player who has 5 sensational skill level guard on his needed skills for example will command a salary of 35-40k will be cheaper by 10-20% from their original salary if they play in australia.

so your foreign players base on the context that was given, will still have the same salary

Just unbanning myself for a second to point out that although salary is the obvious target here, the adjustment could come from tweaks to fan revenue and merchandising instead. The idea being that fans feel a closer bond with home grown players than imports.

Woah woah woah woah woah woah woah.... woah.... woah. Louis, this is not my Batman glass.

It's a little funny to explain these things to a team that has been here from season 3 but ok.
Italians were complaining that they could not build arenas because competition was fierce -> no money to expand. Other countrys took different routes.
I believe all countrys have the same formulas for div1 etc.
Now youre knowledge on arenas seems to be lacking. You can build your arena as big as you want (nobody has hit the cap). You do understand that if you build seats and lower the price on the seat it will bring you more revenue the downside is that money invested in the arena will take some time to earn back. There is actually no point of have your prices maxxed ever! Now what are the right prices? Ideal would be lowest price and full arena -> it might take a while to earn back your investment ofcourse if you expand and switch from 6$ down to 5$ and build price of seat is 200. So basically it will come back to the when is it good to lower prices at what size the arena should be and how big the seat addition should be. To get back 1 newly build seat will get your invested money back in 40 home games (that's 4 seasons). Where is the choke point in arenas noone knows yet but I'm guessing it's there somewhere. NB! Bigger arenas and lower prices also give you better managing with wins losses not effecting your revenue as much.

in all ways it will affect revenue... i think we all agree that there is only 1 way to meassure a top leagues true strength compared by other top leagues by looking at the results in BBB. For us in medium sized and lower sized countries this will mean (in my opinion) we loose competitiveness compared to the top leagues off other countries. as far as i am aware, no team from a small country has won the BBB yet. The competitiveness in just the country should stay the same since the new change would hit all managers.

However, like I tried to point out before, i have no problem with a change like this as long as there are enough decent players to build a decent squad. there are 10 decent trainees and they are really just decent 18 year old players for sale that are english. with 520 active players that is not adequate enough... just imagine how this works out with the 1 only japanees 18 year old for sale at the moment...

Last edited by Astragoth at 2/25/2009 7:52:32 AM

Now youre knowledge on arenas seems to be lacking. You can build your arena as big as you want (nobody has hit the cap).

what have i said that warrents you to say that? i made no accusation, and made no comments as if i would have the answers. there are many different ways how you can get the most from arena revenue, many people have different opinions. i am leaving mine out off this for now. what i wonder is, are these ideas based on an example you just have given me? or are they based on someone really sitting down and calculate the arena revenue for all teams in the top italian team, top german team, top spanish team etc and compare them all together to figure out what the best method is? I cant be bothered to do this, so i wont and never have commented on what is the best method. all i have done is questioned the opinion from others that have a clear view and i ask where they base their view on. is that so wrong?

I agree with you that building a big stadium is a long term strategy... or that is how i read your message. that is why my team looks quite weak at the moment. i can guarantee you my team is on the right path. A very long path but on the right one... only the long term future will tell whether big stadiums or not have a benefit... i hope i made the right choice...

Last edited by Astragoth at 2/25/2009 8:02:36 AM

The nationality tax certainly does not bode well for me - but I guess it is time to end my run in B3 (but at least giving me another season or two to make a run when I have the same level of taxes).

For the past few seasons, I have been attempting to find top Canadian prospects to train and have found none. As we have 363 teams currently, there are few worthwhile players that are drafted, but those have ended up going to bot teams or inactive users. This season, with the help of our capable NT managers, I found a couple of Canadian draftees I would buy if I could, but they are on unresponsive teams.

What can be the purpose of a nationality tax, other than to discriminate against smaller countries? Aside from the fact that this has little resemblance to reality, for most small countries (perhaps Japan excepted), the level of competition in the top divisions is becoming much more competitive and approaching the other top domestic leagues (I am confident that at least 3 Naismith teams would make the playoffs in any current domestic league). Within a few more seasons, the competition gap will be closed.

Khm... So can you actually back up your claim with numbers.
Let's take Drunkers for example he has 369564 player salaries (not including the drafted players). Let's tax that with 10% that's ~36956 per week in taxes if you would have it in your country. Now his 3 Italyan players will make his team cost 13676 less per week. That's a whooping 191464 per season. If you think that one team can make just national player base team and be successful then you are wrong because none will give them away just to streanghten your opponent in the league. Now he has extreamly hard league and you will make that money back easy with easier games. If there are more users then more users need those no tax players -> stiffer competition harder to get. Every country has those inactive players + a lot of those good prospects will not be sold as people who know the game will keep them for themselves. With this change you have a better chance of getting that canadian superdraftplayer because others will be looking for their nationality player. Any of the low user country superteam can actually buy out any decent draftee if there is lesser outside intrest.

I strongly suggest to the people who aren't happy with the proposed changes help figure out an alternative solution to the problem. Because it is a problem - how do you encourage people to train and develop their own national players?

I'm a fella who has a starting line up of 3 Spainiards, 1 Portugeese and 1 Italian player and because of this I understand there is a definate need to implement a change. Because what advangtage is there currently? I drafted a brilliant (although 19 year old) English SG last year and instead of figuring out a way to train him i sold him and bought an older foreign player - which helped me get a much better league position. What's stopping players continuing to do that over and over? Currently there are no benefits given to people that do take the hit in their current ability to win games in order to help develop national talent.

The players that have "a 5 year plan to develop youth" might find that in 5 seasons the top leagues are too hard to get to. I could be very wrong but to me a plan that sees you winning in 2 seasons is better than one where you "might" win in 5.

The main issue however is without a change the larger nation's national teams will keep getting stronger and stronger.

One proposal may be that if they are to introduce the wage tax then maybe there should be a way to buy computer ran team's young players? Or something to boost the amount of young players coming from the small countries.

It's an interesting point and one that probably needs a lot of discussion. Suggestions from players, especially at this early stage, seem to be listened to pretty intently, i'm sure a reasonable solution can be developed.

Well, I do believe that finding the players that you want should require more effort than just applying 3-4 filters, that way it's more rewarding when you find it. Now that you can filter on potential, most people would just filter allstar as a minimum. Who really wants to see 6th man and benchwarmers, i've never seen a team consist of low potential players before. MVP and up are too easy to find now. They used to be rare gems when you were browsing through your list of filtered players, now they are just presented as cupcakes.

What happened to the fact that most of the GM's stated, almost as a fact, that filtering by country would never happen. That it would be too easy to find possible NT's this way and kill the meaning of having scouts. Which i also agree with. Now that it has been implemented i hear nothing about it from the GM's. Like it should have been implemented from the start...

It's just too simple. I don't like it when BB wants to hold my hand when other people are too lazy to find the players on their own. And i know one of you is gonna go like: "well if you don't like it, don't use it", well the option is there why not use it. I still believe that it's way too easy to find players now.

I agree.

I disagree about NT, such players are already known to sane NT manager.

as far as i am aware, no team from a small country has won the BBB yet

actually jbmcrock himself posted right after you, claiming the changes will damage him because he's from a small country