BuzzerBeater Forums

of course if i spend every $ in players there's no point in complaining when my salaries reach my weekly income and suddenly i stop making money

odd, i dont see anyone in this thread that fits that description.

I fully agree with everything you have stated in this thread.
It was much easier to expand the arena a few seasons ago than it is now. And this is a fact.
As I stated in other threads, the economy for teams starting now in low divisions is probably a bit too tough and not much fun.

of course expanding was easier when inflation was running wild and the top teams were buying players for something like 6-8 millions because the price of new seats is the same now as it was then
of course if i spend every $ in players there's no point in complaining when my salaries reach my weekly income and suddenly i stop making money

have you even read my post?
Where am I complaining? where am I talking about myself?
NEW TEAMS starting in LOW DIVISIONS.

Last edited by Newton07 at 2/23/2009 5:15:26 PM

I fully agree with everything you have stated in this thread.
It was much easier to expand the arena a few seasons ago than it is now. And this is a fact.
As I stated in other threads, the economy for teams starting now in low divisions is probably a bit too tough and not much fun.

of course expanding was easier when inflation was running wild and the top teams were buying players for something like 6-8 millions because the price of new seats is the same now as it was then
of course if i spend every $ in players there's no point in complaining when my salaries reach my weekly income and suddenly i stop making money

have you even read my post?
Where am I complaining? where am I talking about myself?
NEW TEAMS starting in LOW DIVISIONS.

new teams starting in low divisions better start upgrading their arena as soon as they've bought a couple of youngsters to train, BEFORE they promote
the "buy players, win now, upgrade tomorrow (maybe)" mentality that was the best strategy in season 3 won't work anymore

We are all on the same conveyor belt - we will all someday have Wondrous JS Wondrous OD guards and Wondrous Big men and we will all have very similar team ratings.. (you can see from the PL's we are already closely bunched together.)

By "All" do you mean the top 100 or so teams in BB? I cant even see that conveyor belt yet.

People keep saying that a softcap will somehow punish teams that invested early. That investment and the advantage gained will remain persistant. If we use Hambourg again as an example, he invested early and with a 50k softcap would still be way ahead of most teams. If he stopped at the softcap, it would still require other teams competing with him to spend the same money he did to get where he is at, its no punishment. He would also be collecting the higher revenue of the bigger stadium until his competition caught him in arena size. In that time his higher revenue, not being spent on arena like the others, would allow top training and better players. The teams behind him are still behind him in this scenario, where is the punishment? Further down the line when everyone in his and the II series would have the same size arena (if they respected the softcap) but he would be making more revenue from his arena than those in II trying to catch him, still at an advantage, but not an insurmountable one. Now it would require several strategies to remain at the top, instead of the heavily wieghted 'cash is king' effect.

Are we trying to make the game a little more balanced for everyone involved or just protecting Sacred Cows?

eople keep saying that a softcap will somehow punish teams that invested early. That investment and the advantage gained will remain persistant. If we use Hambourg again as an example, he invested early and with a 50k softcap would still be way ahead of most teams. If he stopped at the softcap, it would still require other teams competing with him to spend the same money he did to get where he is at, its no punishment

right it's no punishment, it something he earned with good managing skills.

right it's no punishment, it something he earned with good managing skills.

....and something he will continue to earn for a very long time, even with the change.

if he stop winning his away games, this period could be pretty short ;)

The main problem of the system are the huge different betwenn succesful team, and "normal" teams. If he statrts loosing his extra income due the arena is pretty small, but actually he pays for a superior roster and he earns the succes ... But the extra cost for the roster negliates his earning through the arena, so that our balaced aren't that much different each week except the play offs.

I guess it is pointless to continue this because we keep going back to any suggestion that isnt status quo is going to get the "he earned it" response. It seems like you are saying that not only should he benefit from a good strategy, but that we must make sure that exact same strategy is always there for him, that we must not limit the future of arenas to so we dont have to rethink any future strategy. Not about punishing a good strategy, its about limiting the dominance of any 1 strategy over all of the others.

some of my thoughts...
i tradet, bb put tax on it...
i went up to first division, bb put tax on it...
i grew my arena, cant wait for a tax...

someone doesnt like me...



Last edited by CitB at 2/24/2009 8:35:39 AM

Maybe tax isn't a good option. Maybe the time of building should expand - If you have 5000 seats and you want to build 2000 it will last 6 days and if you have 40000 seats in your arena and you want to build next 2000 it will last 30 days. It is a proposal.

Last edited by Avirto at 2/24/2009 8:48:06 AM

I guess it is pointless to continue this because we keep going back to any suggestion that isnt status quo is going to get the "he earned it" response. It seems like you are saying that not only should he benefit from a good strategy, but that we must make sure that exact same strategy is always there for him, that we must not limit the future of arenas to so we dont have to rethink any future strategy. Not about punishing a good strategy, its about limiting the dominance of any 1 strategy over all of the others.

This is the point that someone doesn't understand...