BuzzerBeater Forums

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...

i see two of them ;) Small arenas would help me, to stay at the top div^^

But will crush the potential system the BB made, because they are against farm teams - and i don't know how you want to pay 400k per week for a div one S5 with one strong center with a small arena?

Last edited by CrazyEye at 2/24/2009 9:41:37 AM

Who wants very small arenas,i don't know.Maybe the point is about some ENORMOUS arenas...

so i say you they won't grw to infinite like you always say ;)

And the actuall income was to low for the rooster of the future, where you pay one of the 200k Center(i would say those 200k center are next season 300k per week), with a bunch of bad fist div player. So you need 200-300k for your star center, if you count with 30-45k slary for the other players, you will get a huge sum and with that salary they won't be good player when good skilled high potential players become more common, especially a 45k PF.