BuzzerBeater Forums

I think the reaction we see now, is the best we could have asked for realistically. I am somewhat satisfied with it.

Just a general suggestion from my good friend Sir Richard Branson: Complexity is your enemy. Any fool can make something complicated. It is hard to make something simple.

I'd get rid of many of those regulations if possible.

Not true. There is nothing wrong to get some feedback before making a decision. After the discussion stage you make the decision you want, it might still be a bad decision, but at least you can say you weighed all (or most) of the pros and cons.

The worst part of talking to Foto and Marin is that they think they are right no matter what kind of evidence or logical reasoning you use and they don't need to explain anything. When you move away from arguing on the general purpose of a change (in this case whether we need anti-tanking or not) and you start simply pointing out inconsistencies in their approach it usually ends very very badly, because they just reject all criticism. Ideally I'd like them to be sure of what they are doing and to be able to explain their choices in a logical way.

I'd have no issue if the problems highlighted in various threads were tackled and they explained why they decided to go ahead with this solution anyway. The fact that we received no answers simply tells me they didn't have any or, in other words, they didn't consider all the angles, because like everyone else they are human and while there's many of us users playing at all levels and using all sorts of approaches to the game, there's only a handful of them and they often don't have first-hand experience on some topics.

If someone says to me that a solution was superior to another, I want him to be able to explain me why. Otherwise I think I have every right to point out what I think the flaws are and ask for improvements. It's their right to make the changes, but I think we have every right to question them especially if they come out of the blue and are completely different from what people discussed in the past. This kind of changes should be bulletproof, obvious.

Last edited by Lemonshine at 1/5/2017 12:13:42 PM

"Not true. There is nothing wrong to get some feedback before making a decision. After the discussion stage you make the decision you want, it might still be a bad decision, but at least you can say you weighed all (or most) of the pros and cons."

It actually is pretty true, because some people live in denial of their being a problem. There have been many seasons of complaints from major power countries in this game asking why they have to save money by the 10's of millions to get to NBBA while micro nations get to start in the NBBA and get the finances started at that level. The scaling of the finances are where the problem is, but do they admit that? no. Instead, they say that the one thing that makes the game fun is being taken, threaten to quit, and it goes away.

There is nothing different here from any of the posts i saw.

Doubt Marin thinks he is always right. I could throw shade on him a little bit about the caretaker versus development philosophy, but thats not really helping anything in this argument. Instead, i think he saw one issue in the game and attacked it head on. It's not a bad idea to fix mistakes, but he was short sighted in the impact that this would have short term on many of the nations that have enough players to have a semi-active D.III in comparison to other nations that would hardly feel it at all. You can't take your time fixing one thing every four seasons when it comes to the economics of the game, they need to be addressed at worst consecutively. The travesty that could occur here is there is still no scope on finances based on levels of play, and D.1 9th place in Taiwan (8 active teams) makes maybe 90% of what a D.1 9th place in France or Spain makes. It should be 50% if their are not enough managers to fill the NBBA. Thats just as important in the financial balance, and if that goes ignored then i start to have a problem as the financial imbalance at the b.3 and in the transfer list gets even more severe.

Well done BB.

You tried something...it didn't work as planned...you listened...you changed/fixed...

+1

Well done BB.

You tried something...it didn't work as planned...you listened...you changed/fixed...

+1

Isn't that the story of the game? Sooner or later those ill-advised, badly planned changes, that need like a dozens tweaks to somehow work as initially intended need to stop.

Frustration takes over, users quit this is a lose-lose situation

Cup, scrimmage and private league do not count though.

Well done BB.

You tried something...it didn't work as planned...you listened...you changed/fixed...

+1

Not quite. More like this: They tried something. They were immediately told it was wrong and targeted people indiscrimately and not the people they wanted to target. They half listened. They reduced the effect. But its still targeting people indiscrimately.

To use a wolph like analogy, its like they bombed a village with a massive bomb to kill one dude and wiped out the entire village. Now they've changed it so they'll use a smaller bomb and only wipe out half the village.

No +1 from me.

No one can take only very good decisions.

The biggest problem is the timing of the announce. But, like IRL, supporters don't come to the game if they know their team will lose.