BuzzerBeater Forums

Let's focus on one thing because it becomes a repetition of the same point over and over without relating to what I wrote.

Let's repeat what you've wrote (in a sence):
The players does not work for this season, they prepare for next season, and trying to get better salary.
The PR is preparing for next season, not for current. In case they will do a better job, they will keep their job.

Is it just me but or that it sounds the same state but different conclusion?...

It's a funny fact that YOU are constantly bringing the same exact answer to whoever tries to make you see how much you're wrong...

Again: the players train for themselves as much as for the team where the PR only works for the team. You get the difference don't you? Tell me you do please...

Let's focus on one thing because it becomes a repetition of the same point over and over without relating to what I wrote.

Let's repeat what you've wrote (in a sence):
The players does not work for this season, they prepare for next season, and trying to get better salary.
The PR is preparing for next season, not for current. In case they will do a better job, they will keep their job.

Is it just me but or that it sounds the same state but different conclusion?...

It's a funny fact that YOU are constantly bringing the same exact answer to whoever tries to make you see how much you're wrong...

Again: the players train for themselves as much as for the team where the PR only works for the team. You get the difference don't you? Tell me you do please...

I guess that the players during season keeps playing for themselves too - next seasons contract.
While their trainers will not show better performane next season due to the practice they are carying on, and that will not affect how they will be presented as trainers...

From the second it becomes silly to pay someone for a period of time, it means that the design is wrong.
Why would a team pay for a PR / Doctor (and/or trainer in a sence) during the off-season [At least when buying a new is cheaper than just keeping current staff]?
There is no reason and hence the market, any market, will make this payment removed.
It is just the way a market works.

Again the repetition of the sentence

This is not real life, this is a game

.
And once again I will need to repeat that then let's stop the three pointers, the fouls and the money issue. This is "just a game".

This is not "just a game", but this is a BB-managing game.

At the hundred time - the injuries are reset in this game before the new season starts.
In the real world - the payment for the players and the staff is or by month (including any month they are on court), of at the start of the season (one paycheck).

When a market has no sense, it adapts by its own.
The adaptation will happen by the users themselves (by firing the staff at this time), and will make all this current state ridiculous.

First - I'm glad you've opened this suggestion in Suggestions and not in bug, well done.

Second - I think as mentioned here before that we shouldn't compare between players and staff salaries. Teams paid players and staff salaries a few seasons back. BB made a change, letting teams avoid players salary in case they don't have an official game this week. This change was made not in order to make this game more realistic or less realistic, it was made as an economic adjustment as many teams found them self in an economic problem when they finished 5th or 8th in the league.

This change had a side effect. It made 5th place a "better" place (At least in the short run - as BB argue that 4th and 3rd place have a positive effect in terms of fans for next seasons)

Letting teams who don't have an official game this week not pay staff salary will only increase the above side effect, letting teams that finish 5th a greater advantage.

As I see it, this game is an online manager game for basketball - It tries to simulate a new "World" of basketball and it has it's own rules. There are many examples of differences between real basketball and BB - not everyone of them is a bug / something that needs to be fixed.

First - I'm glad you've opened this suggestion in Suggestions and not in bug, well done.

First - I first opened it in the bug forum (where it is belonged). This is a feature as the "blue screens" are a Microsoft feature...

Second - I think as mentioned here before that we shouldn't compare between players and staff salaries. Teams paid players and staff salaries a few seasons back. BB made a change, letting teams avoid players salary in case they don't have an official game this week. This change was made not in order to make this game more realistic or less realistic, it was made as an economic adjustment as many teams found them self in an economic problem when they finished 5th or 8th in the league.

This does not contradicts the fact that the staff salaries could be removed as well from those same weeks.

This change had a side effect. It made 5th place a "better" place (At least in the short run - as BB argue that 4th and 3rd place have a positive effect in terms of fans for next seasons)

Letting teams who don't have an official game this week not pay staff salary will only increase the above side effect, letting teams that finish 5th a greater advantage.

Not doing that keeps the surely exist side affect where the payment is irrationable.
A case where the market fires their staff (and that will be the right decision for a large part of the community at this case), means that the market is "broken", does not behave rationally, and needs a fix.

As I see it, this game is an online manager game for basketball - It tries to simulate a new "World" of basketball and it has it's own rules. There are many examples of differences between real basketball and BB - not everyone of them is a bug / something that needs to be fixed.

This one is a bug.
Not doing that, while the notion of firing at this case is being spread, will cause a storm of selling-buying of staff with no real reason doing so... except this bug.

First - I first opened it in the bug forum (where it is belonged). This is a feature as the "blue screens" are a Microsoft feature...

Well in a personal note, lucky you are not the ruler of all and you don't decide what is a bug and what is a feature. not here at least. Maybe in Microsoft... In case you want to decide that you can try and build your own online game or try and join BB development team - they were hiring way back...

Second - I think as mentioned here before that we shouldn't compare between players and staff salaries. Teams paid players and staff salaries a few seasons back. BB made a change, letting teams avoid players salary in case they don't have an official game this week. This change was made not in order to make this game more realistic or less realistic, it was made as an economic adjustment as many teams found them self in an economic problem when they finished 5th or 8th in the league.
This does not contradicts the fact that the staff salaries could be removed as well from those same weeks.

read next paragraphs - you quoting what ever is comfortable for you to make a silly point is not making that point valid.

Not doing that keeps the surely exist side affect where the payment is irrationable.
A case where the market fires their staff (and that will be the right decision for a large part of the community at this case), means that the market is "broken", does not behave rationally, and needs a fix.

I agree - a case where a market fires their staff as you explained is not neutral and might need to be fixed. I don't agree your suggestion is the right fix as it will have other effects as I wrote above.

This one is a bug.
Not doing that, while the notion of firing at this case is being spread, will cause a storm of selling-buying of staff with no real reason doing so... except this bug.

As I explained and many other managers explained this is not a bug. You writing that it is a bug won't make it a bug even if you'll write it again and again.

I doubt the current situation will cause a "storm of selling-buying" of staff as you wrote but some may indeed take advantage of this behavior.

This one is a bug.

You do realise that the BBs have consciously decided to make teams paying staff when they don't have an official game right? And you do realise that "consciously deciding" is the exact opposite of a bug, whatever you think of the quality of this decision, right?

By the way, why do you keep sending the same answers for weeks on each suggestion even if everyboby (everybody is the key word here) is telling you that the game doesn't need what you suggest?
If you really think that you represent "the voice of the real people" when everybody else posting here are liers, why don't you prove it?! Create a federation with all the people that think like you and your voices will be better heard. (That's what we're doing with this one: (http://www.buzzerbeater.com/community/fedoverview.aspx?fe...) but obviously, nobody thinks like you there).
And don't tell me that you can't be supporter because if you have time and will for the game to send all these suggestions/answers/..., you have it to earn a supporter package via super rewards.

First - I first opened it in the bug forum (where it is belonged). This is a feature as the "blue screens" are a Microsoft feature...

Well in a personal note, lucky you are not the ruler of all and you don't decide what is a bug and what is a feature. not here at least. Maybe in Microsoft... In case you want to decide that you can try and build your own online game or try and join BB development team - they were hiring way back...

Probably not paying enough for me, and we probably will find that we don't agree that "blue screen" is not "a feature"... :+)

Not doing that keeps the surely exist side affect where the payment is irrationable.
A case where the market fires their staff (and that will be the right decision for a large part of the community at this case), means that the market is "broken", does not behave rationally, and needs a fix.

I agree - a case where a market fires their staff as you explained is not neutral and might need to be fixed. I don't agree your suggestion is the right fix as it will have other effects as I wrote above.

1) So give your own fix...
2) The fix for that is adjusting the already defined adjustments due to the players salary not being payed.
3) And in case we returning to the fact that it "does not fill like it is being adjust, and it seems that 5th place is better than the 4th", than try to join BB and fix it. They claim it does. [In this case I believe them].

This one is a bug.
Not doing that, while the notion of firing at this case is being spread, will cause a storm of selling-buying of staff with no real reason doing so... except this bug.

As I explained and many other managers explained this is not a bug. You writing that it is a bug won't make it a bug even if you'll write it again and again.

I doubt the current situation will cause a "storm of selling-buying" of staff as you wrote but some may indeed take advantage of this behavior.

Any manager that knows that will plan to make benefit of it.
Hence, it will be taken into consideration, and on any case once in about a season is a right time to replace your staff.
Hence, all of those who knows about this, and are in off-season during this time of the "year", will fire their staff and then buy new ones after a week.
Hence - a storm will happen.

This one is a bug.

You do realise that the BBs have consciously decided to make teams paying staff when they don't have an official game right? And you do realise that "consciously deciding" is the exact opposite of a bug, whatever you think of the quality of this decision, right?

One could consciously be wrong.
Suggestions come to fix things that had been made consciously wrong or where never thought of.

By the way, why do you keep sending the same answers for weeks on each suggestion even if everyboby (everybody is the key word here) is telling you that the game doesn't need what you suggest?

Not repeating the same answer, the answer is changed upon the points that one raises.

If you really think that you represent "the voice of the real people" when everybody else posting here are liers

The users who participate here is not a sampling of the BB community in any way.
And even if all thinks the same except me, it does not prove that I am wrong. [Galileo Galilei]