BuzzerBeater Forums

It is not even true as a statement.
There are majorities at the congress of two thirds (and even more) that are needed in order a law could pass.

It do makes me laugh how you just keep chasing the voting issue and not bringing a single new excuse as they just have been answered all.

When 37% of the users think that something is needed to be considered, it means that there is a problem for a large group of users, and not that it was proved wrong and I was the only one who vote in favour (like you tried to argue for your own benefit of this mall system).

In the end, the developers will see that there is a problem for 37% of the users.
They will see that it means that users leaving the game due to it.
They will see that the new system just has no flows, except for those who benefits from current system unfairness.
They will understand that there was no claim that pointed to a problem that had not been answered.
Due to all that they will choose to have this feature, as it will improve the game and the community size of who plays the game.

Exactly.
New rules pass with 67% of the votes.
You want your new rule to be legit when you have 37% of the votes.
Enough said.


And no, you didn't answer claims at all. They are all there in the previous 100+ posts. If people don't keep replying is just because they're bored of repeating the same things again and again.

But I'll try once more and repeat my main problem with auto-bid:

Auto-bid removes the suspence/fun in the transfer market. The suspence/fun of the transfer market is the major lure of the game for new users. There is a high risk to lose new users if you implement auto-bid. If you give auto-bid only to oldtimers, you introduce unfairness.

Goodnight now

The suggestion has pretty much been flogged to death. Let's try to introduce some new points of view (pro or con) in a friendly manner or close the discussion which has been a bit disrespectful for about 100 posts.

Exactly.
New rules pass with 67% of the votes.
You want your new rule to be legit when you have 37% of the votes.
Enough said.

Basically you are now defining how the developers should choose their new features.
This is not the way they are choosing it.
It is, again, pointing out that you are looking for excuses and not for a solution or to reason out why it is a bad suggestion.

And no, you didn't answer claims at all. They are all there in the previous 100+ posts. If people don't keep replying is just because they're bored of repeating the same things again and again.

"Great" claim. We all "know" that when one would not answer an argument the other will just bring new ones instead.

Basically you're argumentative plan now is just inventing new reality that does not exists.

I don't know how this claim here will assist you.
Do you think that the developers will just read this quote of you and will say "OK, let's not read any other post here"?

Auto-bid removes the suspence/fun in the transfer market. The suspence/fun of the transfer market is the major lure of the game for new users. There is a high risk to lose new users if you implement auto-bid. If you give auto-bid only to oldtimers, you introduce unfairness.

Let's break this one into pieces...

1)

If you give auto-bid only to oldtimers, you introduce unfairness.

So, you are admitting that currently there is unfairness in the auction system as the auto-bidding system does not give any advantage besides the option to be part of any auction. It just "simulate" what that user would have done in case he was online at the time of the auction that he couldn't be part of.
As I remember you claiming just the opposite, it is very... interesting.

2)

There is a high risk to lose new users if you implement auto-bid

As you just admitted in (1) that current status is not fair, you can narrow the it in two ways.
a) Open this new feature to all.
b) Close this feature to newbies (until they play a full season or so)
The newbies will suffer some unfairness but only in the first season (compared to current status which is - always).

In addition, unfairness in a game (any game) pushes users away from the game much more than anything else.

3)

The suspence/fun of the transfer market is the major lure of the game for new users

a) It is not removed. They can be online bidders after the auto-bidding part ends.
b) It is not what makes the game that fun. It is like saying that the mirror in the car is what makes the driving on it fun, and that the quality of the mirror is the one of the most interesting parts when buying a car.
If you are right, I would suggest making an auction-simulation game. Somehow it sounds ridiculous.
c) As I wrote, they could be blocked at the first season to be able only to bid online.
The unfairness of it already discussed at (2).
You limit the unfairness from "always" to "only at the first season/s".

Waiting for new excuses.

Last edited by Pini פיני at 10/27/2011 2:36:43 AM

As you just admitted in (1) that current status is not fair, you can narrow the it in two ways.
a) Open this new feature to all.
b) Close this feature to newbies (until they play a full season or so)
The newbies will suffer some unfairness but only in the first season (compared to current status which is - always).

In addition, unfairness in a game (any game) pushes users away from the game much more than anything else.

you really meant this serious, with this change you get unfairness. Today you have fairness, so you like to scare of user with your suggestion.

As you just admitted in (1) that current status is not fair, you can narrow the it in two ways.
a) Open this new feature to all.
b) Close this feature to newbies (until they play a full season or so)
The newbies will suffer some unfairness but only in the first season (compared to current status which is - always).

In addition, unfairness in a game (any game) pushes users away from the game much more than anything else.

you really meant this serious, with this change you get unfairness. Today you have fairness, so you like to scare of user with your suggestion.

The logic that brang you to this conclusion is very... interesting.

Currently there is no fairness - it gives advantage to those who have more flexible time.
This game is about BB managing and not about making your time flexible.
The suggestion will make it fair, at least under that aspect.

In case you are claiming that it gives advantage - because it enable all users to be part of any auction unlike current status - then you approve that current status is unfair.
In case you don't, so how will it cause unfairness?

If you are saying that the new system will be too much for the new users (which is ridiculous), then you can disable it for them, and still the game will be more fair for them then it currently is, as this unfairness will be for a short while - unlike current status.

Basically you are trying to give excuse that contradicts anything you claimed previously, and even contradicts itself in the same sentence...

Dude are you still sticking with this? You've gone on for how many posts and you still haven't managed to convince anyone. give it a rest...

Last edited by Coolbobj at 10/27/2011 4:52:13 AM

For me fairness is having in rpiority the same chanches, and oppurtunitys. When all play in the same enviroment, i can say it is fairness. That effort and knowledge gives ltiile advatages is also ok.

But giving newbies, less oppurtunitys and very boring bidwars against bot, which he mostly had to face who never make mistakes, who aren't affected by psychological games is an disadvantage cause normal bidding get very boring with existing autobids.(and you don't need much time even in the current transfer system)
So forcing newbies to make something boring, would at least for me a reason to quit and is not the sense of a game wihich should be enjoying.

Most people like the current bidding, and find it enjoying. I believe you that there are for sure people, who would prefer autobids, but that bidding against a maschine is the dsame fun like against a user you are the only one who believes it.

But giving new and old users and different enviroment then there opponents is unfair, cause you didn't have the same chanches.

Where is the facepalm icon here?

My reasoning on the vote is not the reason that I bring. It's just a reply to your absurd claim that the vote is splitted.
It takes some science-fiction attitude to say that when 67% of the voters agree that it is a bad idea, the vote is splitted.


And what's with this breaking my argument into pieces from bottom to top?
That is some unfair way to argument.
Try again with the correct order at least.

You are still blabbing about the same things. Can you already get the fact that noone is leaving the game because of the TL bidding system. Get real already...

In case you are claiming that it gives advantage - because it enable all users to be part of any auction unlike current status - then you approve that current status is unfair.

So what are you claiming now? That offline users are not a part of the bidding system now and will be in the new system? If you bid 300k on a player now and 300k with your new proposed system -> whats the difference, if the player get's sold for 600k. Neither would be online to bid anyway. If the player would sell for 250k, then both bidding systems would win the player to the bidder. The only thing you are trying to do here is get profit on low priced players. You are not improving the chance of getting the player.
You keep choosing things to answer and manage to produce false facts "that you know for sure", but actually are not facts. This is getting amusing already. You have many suggestions open where your reasoning is just so bizarre. Noone here is agreeing with you. Can you give it a rest already?