BuzzerBeater Forums

Well, first of all sorry for my english.
I don´t have a prime time team. It´s only a 4º division team in spain but I have invested 3.3 millions in my arena en the past 2 seasons. And I secure that the new seats have not given me adicional economical income. I put the money in the arena as a long term investment, but in the short term I could have got nearly the same income putting the tickets prices up.
What I want to say is that the seats demolition needs to be regarded with the 100% of the invested money. Al least in my case it would need to be because I have not get any advantage of it (you can see my past games income and see, but I am making nearly the same money this season in 4º division with my new arena than I did last season in 5º division with the older and smaller arena -maybe now a bit more, but only a bit) . Maybe other teams got it, but I think thats impossible to knew for every single team.

compare my and the arena from the tall blacks, i linked them short time before ;) I write it above if you have mre seats, you will have less prices, so if you have 50 you ask for 650$, if you have hundred, you will selll the new 50 for 450$ or less, and the old 50 not for 650 anymore you will ask for 450$ too(which gives then a income fromm 10.000 less money, where you have to sell ~20 seats to be "neutral") ;)
Like i said before.

So 7000, is the different income betwenn 40k with 95 and 33k with 55, pretty easy or ;) Because he sells more then 25 ticket, without nno income which gives full income in your totaly wrong math.

Thatsa how the arena works, not i build an extra seat, and all the money it generate is extra, the effect is much lower.

You have almost 24,000 bleacher seats and haven't been able to sell more than 20,000 since at least April 25. Why should you get a full return for having foolishly built 4,000 more seats than you can sell?

I understand exactly how this works. You invested in something that carries a diminishing rate of return. In other words, your money was being spent in an inefficient manner -- for every seat you bought, you got less and less return. Once again, having made a poor investment in order to chase maximum arena returns, you now want to suffer none of the consequences that attend having made that decision. It's inane to cast this as a strategy choice -- every single team in BB was trying to build an arena to your levels to capture every possible seat dollar, since there was really no negative to doing so. But my point still stands -- you have already made a return from your seats and received the benefit of the bargain you made when buying them. Therefore, you are not entitled to anything in addition.

did you know the difference betwenn succesfull and less succesful teams? that's around 35-50% of the income, so if i make the prices that i sell everything even if i lost the game before, i will waste 50% of the income if i win this game. If i plan with a win and don't have it, i maybe loss 10%. So calculate with the optimum is ebetter, then with the nmore normal case odf a midfield team, which i was actually even if my start is messed up.

So please think a bit how the visitors works in the game, and not make the counting to i sell a seat this is the money i get and i sell everytime every seats - thats have nothing to do with the game.

If it is true that in order to succeed a team in BB must have a massive arena and overbuild seats, all this does is highlight my earlier point that building large arenas was not a strategy, but a requisite. It also does absolutely nothing to disprove my point that you have already received back the money you spent to build seats that are more than a certain number of home games old, and are therefore not entitled to more. And as to your diminishing returns, you knew when you spent the money that there was a decent chance you would never sell all your seats, and if that was the case, any cash spent on empty chairs was wasted. Yet now you want that money back?

you have a 6k arena. seriously...

What I want to say is that the seats demolition needs to be regarded with the 100% of the invested money. Al least in my case it would need to be because I have not get any advantage of it (you can see my past games income and see, but I am making nearly the same money this season in 4º division with my new arena than I did last season in 5º division with the older and smaller arena -maybe now a bit more, but only a bit) . Maybe other teams got it, but I think thats impossible to knew for every single team.

You're not getting your money back because you built more seats than you can sell in a lower division. In the real world, a business that builds up more inventory than it can sell and thus loses money doesn't get any of its invested capital back. Why should you?

you have a 6k arena. seriously...

Sure, so do most of the people playing this game. Believe me, I'm building as fast as my economic situation will allow. I think the new arena size restrictions are unlikely to have any effect on arenas with less than 20,000 seats.

But I also haven't spent much time in USA Division III. And when I was in Div. IV, and saw I wasn't selling out every game, I refrained from blowing money on more seats I knew weren't going to net me revenue right away. Any player can look at the teams in his division and get a good idea of how many seats he can legitimately expect to sell.

Last edited by crimedevil at 6/17/2009 8:23:33 AM

You have almost 24,000 bleacher seats and haven't been able to sell more than 20,000 since at least April 25. Why should you get a full return for having foolishly built 4,000 more seats than you can sell?

actually i was thinking, to make the prices higher ;)

The difference betwenn succes si gigantic, last season i have less then 15k visitors after lost game, but selled out a bit less then 20k after wins. I could sell above 24k seats with prices around 12, when i look at the opposition which fits more to my arena.

I understand exactly how this works. You invested in something that carries a diminishing rate of return. In other words, your money was being spent in an inefficient manner -- for every seat you bought, you got less and less return

thats wrong, i got more return on a secure way ;) But it wasn't ticket price * new seats, a normal building maybe raises my font ss per game around 10k each game.

Even with an higher investment in the rooster, it was nearly impossible to win the away games, and i mainly invest additional Arena income back in the arena.

Once again, having made a poor investment in order to chase maximum arena returns, you now want to suffer none of the consequences that attend having made that decision

If it is true that in order to succeed a team in BB must have a massive arena and overbuild seats, all this does is highlight my earlier point that building large arenas was not a strategy, but a requisite.If it is true that in order to succeed a team in BB must have a massive arena and overbuild seats, all this does is highlight my earlier point that building large arenas was not a strategy

mmmh if it like that, let the arena be and look if it really a bad decision ;) because i am planning to play this game longer then till season 10.

If this strategie isn't working, you don't have to regulate right?

you have already made a return from your seats and received the benefit of the bargain you made when buying them. Therefore, you are not entitled to anything in addition.

wait, beofore few seconds i amde bad buissness with it, and yes that has some truth because i set on long term not short term - and to this point maybe a additional investment in players with an extra away win gives me more money and a player who is still worth his investment(if you buy right and don't hold him too long).

Should i get punished that they kill my strategy, before it starts to work? Or should i get an replacement for it - till now i would say more then 100% was more fair then less ... Even is such dramatic channge in enginering in a strategic LONG term game, isn't really good in my eyes.

If it is true that in order to succeed a team in BB must have a massive arena and overbuild seats, all this does is highlight my earlier point that building large arenas was not a strategy, but a requisite

you have to do a bt of it all, but the differences aren't huge after 20k arena for a midfield team, but if you maked it earlier it start to be efficient earlier. But i won't shot up ecomically opponent with 20k arena, i got a slightly advance but not an unfair one.

Should i get punished that they kill my strategy, before it starts to work? Or should i get an replacement for it - till now i would say more then 100% was more fair then less ... Even is such dramatic channge in enginering in a strategic LONG term game, isn't really good in my eyes.

But you knew your long-term strategy carried diminishing returns. It's obvious from that alone that excessively large arenas are not a strategy the BBs want to encourage. You couldn't foresee that the BBs might scratch their heads and think, "Hmmm, no NBA team can sell more than 20,000 seats... no Euroleague team has an arena bigger than 35K..." and make a move like this? I find that balance in everything is at a premium in this game, and arena size is no different.

And you are getting a replacement for it. You're getting a new TV contract the value of which we can only speculate about at this point. And your new contract pays every week, rain or shine, win or lose, not like fickle fans.

I think you have misunderstood something. The term "diminishing returns" means that the last seats are less valuable than the first. But this doesn't mean it is a bad investment. In some seasons even though it would be alot, they would benefit from there large arenas.
The point about that we have to foresee what changes the BBs might add to the game engine is bad. It is a game this has its limitations. One might say that it was possible to foresee these changes and how the BBs dealt with them, then you should have built more seats in your arena and then sold them.

Should i get punished that they kill my strategy, before it starts to work? Or should i get an replacement for it - till now i would say more then 100% was more fair then less ... Even is such dramatic channge in enginering in a strategic LONG term game, isn't really good in my eyes.

But you knew your long-term strategy carried diminishing returns. It's obvious from that alone that excessively large arenas are not a strategy the BBs want to encourage. You couldn't foresee that the BBs might scratch their heads and think, "Hmmm, no NBA team can sell more than 20,000 seats... no Euroleague team has an arena bigger than 35K..." and make a move like this? I find that balance in everything is at a premium in this game, and arena size is no different.

i could have foreseen that, and it was clear BB wasn't liking it???

In this case i was asking you, why the ticket prices go from 5 to 20 for bleachers, and a normal with 10 and just the biggers arena just work with STARTING prices?

If they don't want it, i was pretty sure that they take their formulas and count a bit with it before they made it, and now they are thinking a other way but this wasn't clear they make no statement in this direction before.

And you are getting a replacement for it. You're getting a new TV contract the value of which we can only speculate about at this point. And your new contract pays every week, rain or shine, win or lose, not like fickle fans.

i get a replacement for it, in this case i want people with smaller arena to have an smaller tv contract ;)

With my arena i could manage even a demotion without selling to much of my stars, because i make nearly the same money as a top DIV II team then a medium Div. I team - if i demote now the extra marketing could be pretty low and maybe i have to half my team budget.

The replacement i get is the money i get back if a reenginier my stadium, and this a poor one ;) But i don't like to get extra punishment through that, i like the change becuase it could be allowing to hold nt players in normal roosters but if you ask me as a club coach - this change is very bad for me and i wouldn't go back for it for just the price i was building the arena.

Last edited by CrazyEye at 6/17/2009 8:52:49 AM

What is the relationship between real life and this game?. Real life is real life and this game is this game. The real life argument is not good to me because there are a lot of aspects of the game that are totally irreal. This game is at a certain extend a way to put your real problems away. That´s how I see it. Playability is the main thing I search in this game. And all the changes in the game need to be balanced to maintain playability.

I think you have misunderstood something. The term "diminishing returns" means that the last seats are less valuable than the first. But this doesn't mean it is a bad investment. In some seasons even though it would be alot, they would benefit from there large arenas.

"Diminishing returns" in this context means that if you have a 20,000 seat arena, and you build 5,000 seats, and your opponent in the same division has a 10,000 seat arena and builds 5,000 seats, while your costs will be identical he is going to see a better return for his money because he can sell 15,000 seats, but you'll have difficulty selling 25,000. You may still get some return, but it won't be as efficient a transaction.

In any case, as you concede, owners who built large arenas have already received the benefit for which they paid. If they spent money to put 2,000 extra seats on a stadium when they knew they were only likely to sell 1,000, the bargain they made was to receive the return for 1,000 sold seats at the cost of building 2,000. That's exactly what they got. Why should they receive anything more?

The point about that we have to foresee what changes the BBs might add to the game engine is bad. It is a game this has its limitations. One might say that it was possible to foresee these changes and how the BBs dealt with them, then you should have built more seats in your arena and then sold them.

I agree that this is a little tenuous, but my basic point is that you can't count on the situation remaining completely static. Everyone knew there was a point at which building more seats was a waste of money because no matter how good your team was, you couldn't sell all the seats. The cutoff point will just be a little bit lower from now on than everyone assumed it was. The owners who have already built lots of seats, and are now preparing to sell them, are actually in the position you describe, only without having had to plan for anything.

But even if this change was totally unforeseeable, you still haven't addressed the fact that the owners who built seats have already received the revenue they expected to from them -- and if they haven't, my proposal would return the cost of the seats. You also haven't addressed the fact that the new TV contracts may very well replace any revenue lost through arena downsizing.

Last edited by crimedevil at 6/17/2009 9:35:33 PM