BuzzerBeater Forums

allright calculating with the existing system is a mistake in a manager game, did i understand you right?

No, going for big changes right off the bat after a new limiting arena changes is the problem.
If new game engine comes out, that would benefit fielding 5 point guards above anyone else. Would you go and buy 5 great point guards quickly? Or would you wait a bit seeing if it is intended?
BB's saw people building illogical arenas, so they intervened. It was your own fault that you did such a big overhaul of your arena. Perhaps they should limit lower tier to 5000 aswell and we would not have this problem:) Everyone would have similar arenas...

No, going for big changes right off the bat after a new limiting arena changes is the problem.
If new game engine comes out, that would benefit fielding 5 point guards above anyone else. Would you go and buy 5 great point guards quickly? Or would you wait a bit seeing if it is intended?

if you have such a good memory, i ask the bb right afterthey change about it. But when you had to play with 5 point guards i at least expect that they mentioon that this isn't intended, and that they give me the possibility to sell then again and if you don't do it they will not promote you again because you playing the game who doesn't exist.

BB's saw people building illogical arenas, so they intervened

Bb didn't calculate how arena would look like, which is more weird ;) Because i believe a max formula is quite easy when you have the code, and that they might look like they known after the second test game. And remember Arena are very unlogical in BB. The building cost of the seats, when it is just about position. And normally it is cheaper to build near the ground.
And did you know how illogical arena extensions are, especially from 5k to 20k, you maybe get 500 extra seats in a arena without building a new one ;)

Perhaps they should limit lower tier to 5000 aswell and we would not have this problem:) Everyone would have similar arenas...

maybe, but they would be a lot of other possibilities, to give the affected person the possibility to make the same decision then the rest and don't push them into something they don't want.

Last edited by CrazyEye at 9/26/2010 6:37:08 AM

I dont think that limited maximum would be the solution. Even now looks weird that everyone on high-level have to have similar arenas. While from the beginning of this game was sure that tickets on bleachers are selling differently than courtside seats and so on. Therefore there is any space for implementing various solutions. Or I think might be.

However to the topic, I think that main problem of diminishing (weird word), is that if you give to the managers the opportunity now, it means getting huge money into the game at once. I think thats the only problem, isnt it?

Also there is possible that arena would serve as a "bank", so lot of managers would do that in the way - cumulate the seats, make a profit from them and right before key playoff game (might be after several seasons doing so), sell as much as possible to have the money for a huge skilled players...

This is serious problem, because it makes playof unbeatable by other strategy.

So I think that would be understandable if selling of these unwanted seats would mean that you would get money on decades. Imagine that you sell arena capacity for 1M. You cant get money right away, because it cost some time before this material buy someone else. Also the guy who is giving you the money want to have any profit from that and later he will pay you, more money he have for himself and for the construction company at disposal (you know that there are employees which needs salary, taxes to be paid, machines to be invested...).

So if you get from diminishing 80 percent, you have to be really glad. Also you likely accept that these 800k would be divided in 10 weeks, so you get 80k p/w

I see now what you mean.

the 'second' change wasn't liked by me either. They announced it, and indeed there never has been a period in which you could diminish the affected seats, as the BBs did that automatically.

Personally, I went from 1000 courtside, selling 750 or so, down to 500, which is why I don't like it. But take it from me, everyone who had more then 500, was broken down to 500 and received his money back, same for arena's which had over 50 VIPs, so there was no need to give opportunities to diminish arena's as it wasn't needed for the second change.

So anyone waiting for the period in which they can diminish their courtside to 500 and VIP to 50: good news, wait no longer, it already has been done for you, at no cost, no waiting time, and total refund.

Hope this answer is satisfying?

my problem was more then i planned with more courtside and vip, but still want to get the 20k seats and i don't have infinite founds. So that affected me that way, that i planned with more bleachers to get faster to the 20k, then i would done with the new system(because i would spend my mone in a different way into the arena).
So for me there was place to react. And maybe that doesn't affected so much people, but i also didn't see the need for an announce changed view minutes after the period to calculate with it expired, for a well known problem.

nobody should see the 20k limit on arena's as a fixed number.
even if someone had no courtside nor VIP and build a 20k arena, it would still be very interesting to add the 500 courtside and 50 VIP, which would make 20550 seats.

I sold over 21k for seasons now...


the 550 seats diffrence there possibly is by no, or full, of these types is just not big enough to make a problem about this.

i am below 20k nearly all the time, and personally think that 19,5k visitors already get affected through the cap so that i don't want to push to hard above it.

And who said that i will be just 500 seats above it.

Edit: i just mean, that this could affect planning, and that it would be nice that old users don't get pushed to a vconfiguration, they maybe wouldn't choosed ;) A limit on one thing, could also affect others.

Last edited by CrazyEye at 9/26/2010 2:15:01 PM

no matter how hard I try, I still can't see why limitting the courtside seats and VIP boxes, could negatively affect anyone, towards planning and diminishing their arenas...

If you say: ok it's because I wanted to get to 20k fast and therefor build other seats first. then... how do you explain that limitting to 500 and 50 would be negative compared to being able to build more?

if they would choose an other configuration, and they build more courtside seats for example, so they build less other, then they could still fill up with other seats as soon as it was announced, and still can...

I can see it affects things, but I can't see it affects users negatively. Please try to give me 1 example in which it totaaly screws up things for someone, and explain why it does, as I honestly can't find an example.
(And please do not give as example that users might want to go to less then 500 and 50, as if they did, they shouldn't have biuld them in the first place, and even if they did they had a chance to diminish them in season 12, and it actually has nothing to do with the hardcap of the fixed numbers the BB put on them)

I see someone ask where the chance for diminishing is, while the diminishing already happened automatically. Something that happens automatically doesn't need a possibility for users to do it, as it can not be done twice... or am I missing something.

If you say: ok it's because I wanted to get to 20k fast and therefor build other seats first. then... how do you explain that limitting to 500 and 50 would be negative compared to being able to build more?

let say you have an etat from 5 miollions to build your arena, one time you build 100/1000 vip/sourtside next time just 50/500. Would your arena look the same?

So you should look for more seats not for less ;)

no matter how hard I try, I still can't see why limitting the courtside seats and VIP boxes, could negatively affect anyone, towards planning and diminishing their arenas...

It does, because it looks really weird. Imagine that you couldnt build to yourself a house efen if you had a money for that. Its like twisted communism.

Even if you had gazillion dollars, you could not make all the seats courtside. We can argue how many rows (and how many seats you can fit in one row) are actually considered courtside. 500 seems a normal enough number for that, 5 rows with 100 seats each or 10 rows with 50 seats each. Whichever you like. I believe we can agree that there can not be 5000 seats courtside. Even if you build a small glass bowl to surround the court and clue people to it, you still could not prolly find room for 5000...