BuzzerBeater Forums

I think you missread my messages.

1) Calling "rubbish" to a game-improvement suggestion is kind of wrong.
First, you cannot say that money-wise the example about the 5th place is fair. No matter how rare it is (and I believe it is not that rare).
The other scenarios adding to the propabilities of unfairness.

I've also suggested a very simple solution that is totaly not difficult or causing much change to the engine.
Having a price or a fee, upon the place a team ended the regular season at (or the full season as a total).

2) I've also wrote regarding a second case of unfairness. In this case, regarding the RL winners and lossers.
Again, I've suggested a solution - a RL 3-games round where each team that will get to this round (5-th and 6-th places on the regular season) will play each other. The winners and lossers of the RL round will be upon this short round only.
This does not change anything regarding season lenght (number of max games for the RL teams) and solve very easily the RL fairness issue.

Thanks in advance for your time and advice.

Last edited by Pini פיני at 10/16/2011 4:42:39 PM

It may not be completely fair but you fail to consider the one most important point in the 6th/7th relegation series:

If you lose, you get relegated and go down a division.

This is a risk that you have to take. if you finish in 3rd/4th and go playoffs, you may get less money but you won't be relegated if you lose. I think the extra revenue is fair given the risk you take.

In addition, the BBs have repeatedly said that the following season's revenue will partially be based on where you finished the previous season so in the long run, it is still more advantageous to finish as high as you can as you will have more fans for the following seasons

1) Regarding the first part, I disagree.
It is not a chance that someone took and should get awarded due to.
It is a better team getting less money regardless of the risk.

This is why you're second part makes sense.
There is a financial compensation for finishing at an higher place.
The only problem with it is that it is needed to be accessible and the value needs to be known.

Again, a price or a fee upon the place a team finished the season at, is something not rare at "real-world" leagues and is the most straight forward way to do this.

2) You missed all of my second suggestion - three games' round of all 4 teams that got to the relegation round.
This is better than matchup between 6th VS 7th as the winners an lossers of this round will more likely be the better teams, unlike the current scenario where a team may suffer for an unfair event like stated in previous message at this thread.

1) Calling "rubbish" to a game-improvement suggestion is kind of wrong.
First, you cannot say that money-wise the example about the 5th place is fair. No matter how rare it is (and I believe it is not that rare).
The other scenarios adding to the propabilities of unfairness.

but you still forgetting the chanche of relegation, which is a big loss. Also you forget that the fifth placed makes more money every homegame in the next season.

Instead of copying my previous respond to "Monkeybiz", I ask you kindly to read it, as I've already responded to that.

BTW, I didn't get any answers to the second suggestion.

Thanks in advance for your time and thought.

[Again, as I wrote, I had the fortion this season to get the "lesser" team, due to the fact that in a point of time during the season they sold most of their valuable players. I'm happy on my fortune, but the game (also the "real" game) should try avoiding that].

i don't see your part, how you respond that the weaker placed team, lose the extra gained money through the coming season and even more.

That is the BB way of making bonuses.

1) I've already answered that - this is a good solution, that approve that the situation (w/o this compensation) is wrong.

In addition I've wrote that I think that it would be better giving them "straight" and not by unknown random money received in the following season (i guess you mean tickets related).

2) Due to the fact that I've got an answer that is (partialy) sounds reasonable for the first part, could you please answer the second part (regarding the RL round) that I've wrote?

Thanks!

about two, i don't see that much need for change because in nearly all cases finishing 6 instead of seven is bette rof home court. A three game relegation series could change that, because if you play on neutral court 7th placed and team who reduce their roster during the season and buy a good one at the end get an advantage(the opposite scenario then yours, which should be even more popular), and 6th and 7th have the same risk of relegation. The other hc scenario i could think off is the team with better standing, which isn't always fair to because of the inbalnaced divisions. With the better record i can think of, but i don't think it will it much fairer or unfairer then before.

And i am not sure if you know it, we GM help the game in the administrativ way like moderating the forums or hunting cheaters but when we don't post stuff like "get back to topic", "cool down" etc. our opion is the of a normal player. So our opions we post on your suggestion isn't more or less important or more needed then the input from other playrs without the GM sign.
And before you ask, the BB post rarely in the suggestion forum, because if they post they normally change the way a topic get discussed but they read it.

Basicaly this is the answer I've expected - Defiining a place that will be easy to find.
Thanks.

Regarding the second issue, I've already answered it - the risk is not relevant (and not presice).
The price needs to be upon teams acheivements that season.
[And as answered there is a vague manipulation that it will be so, but the Q is why not clear and known, by a fee or a price upon the team place at the end of a season?]

The last part is regarding the RL-PL time only.
Currently there are 2 or 3 games between 6th place VS 7th place teams.
I suggests to have a short round of three games between each team who ended 6th and 7th.
By that the best two of these forur teams will stay in the league and the other two will drop.
In current status there are cases that it isn't so, as my example in previous message explains..
As you understand there is no shortening of the season, the season's length stay as it is now.

1) Regarding the first part, I disagree.
It is not a chance that someone took and should get awarded due to.
It is a better team getting less money regardless of the risk.

Its not a matter of a better team getting more money but a team taking the additional risk of being relegated. There are better rewards for finishing higher up. Its risk free to finish in 4th. If you finish 6th, you might get more income but you also run the risk of relegation. One injury to your star player is all it takes to relegate! In addition, 4th have better income the following season.

Its not about a broken game engine. The whole point of this is that it allows choice. It is a calculated risk that the manager can make if he wants to try finish 4th and get more income in the long run or try finish 6th and get more short term income and run the risk of relegation.

2) You missed all of my second suggestion - three games' round of all 4 teams that got to the relegation round.
This is better than matchup between 6th VS 7th as the winners an lossers of this round will more likely be the better teams, unlike the current scenario where a team may suffer for an unfair event like stated in previous message at this thread.

Again this comes down to planning. You can try avoid certain positions and unfortunately in the world of sport not all rules are fair. You might be drawn against tougher opponents all the time.Rather than trying to change the rules, managers need to plan and try achieve what they think is best for their teams within the scope of the rules