BuzzerBeater Forums

Suggestions > Fix #3/#4 vs #5 imbalance

Fix #3/#4 vs #5 imbalance

Set priority
Show messages by
This Post:
00
229555.20 in reply to 229555.17
Date: 11/26/2012 2:34:58 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
297297
In the current system 4 teams relegate, but in your system 6 teams would relegate. This would require a complete overhaul of the promotion/relegation system.

The easiest solution to this would be to have a lot of teams promote due to their record but I think this would lower the importance of the playoffs.


This Post:
00
229555.21 in reply to 229555.4
Date: 11/26/2012 2:37:23 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
297297
WHo is the second team to promote? The loser of the finals? The bunch of left over teams with the best records? Either way the playoffs become much less important.

I am not a fan of this idea.

This Post:
11
229555.22 in reply to 229555.21
Date: 12/3/2012 12:04:54 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
9191
So, despite of all suggestions, BB found nothing better than take away money from 1st and 2nd seed?!!
Why couldn't they incur double prices for play offs as was brilliantly suggested?! 4/3 to home team, 2/3 to away team.
This could fix the imbalance without going back on their previous logical justification for teams not playing, not paying.
Is there still time?

This Post:
00
229555.23 in reply to 229555.22
Date: 12/3/2012 1:57:18 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
166166
The way I see it the 2nd place position now receives the least amount of money unless they win their first game. I still don't understand why the 5th and 8th place teams should receive money. Could someone explain why this is without including all the BB bashing?

This Post:
00
229555.24 in reply to 229555.22
Date: 12/3/2012 7:06:11 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
699699
You can't just create extra revenues out of nowhere like that. Many efforts are made to try to harness the game economy.
Extra revenues would go with other changes.

Here, the change is only an existing revenue that is distributed differently, it's easier to implement.

This Post:
00
229555.25 in reply to 229555.23
Date: 12/3/2012 7:08:52 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
699699
The only justification is to try to have a system that works with each position having more benefits than a lower position in the rankings.

From: Jay_m

This Post:
11
229555.26 in reply to 229555.22
Date: 12/4/2012 9:52:51 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
216216
Plus it is already difficult enough to maintain competitive balance. The top teams tend to stay on the top because they get more money than anyone else. This will help even that out.

From: thylacine

This Post:
00
229555.27 in reply to 229555.26
Date: 12/4/2012 1:33:49 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
9191
Plus it is already difficult enough to maintain competitive balance. The top teams tend to stay on the top because they get more money than anyone else. This will help even that out.

So you wanna punish successful teams? It doesn't make sense.
It should be difficult to maintain competitive balance, that's the point of it!
You get more money if you're a better manager.
If you're a great manager, why do you have to pay to inferior managers, so they don't feel hard done by?
It's ridiculous, as is the notion that you can't reward ambitious (=active) teams with extra imaginary money.

From: Jay_m

This Post:
00
229555.28 in reply to 229555.27
Date: 12/4/2012 4:20:42 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
216216
I think you are not aware of the situation in the higher leagues. Very often a team tanks for a few seasons and builds up a big roster which allows them to coast for several seasons, helped by getting more money every season from a variety of sources including Cup, B3, and tournament games. Now, the differential in money from the league has been evened up.

The structure of any game should be that the winners are penalized for the next season. In the NBA, this occurs through the draft and through increasing salaries. Here, even if you are lucky enough to get a good rookie, he can have no impact on your team. You buy a great guy off the market for $3mil, his salary, if anything, will go down.

Unless you can maintain a churn in the leaders, everyone gets bored after a few seasons, including the first place teams. The real reward should be in winning, not in trying to maximize your bank balance.

This Post:
00
229555.29 in reply to 229555.27
Date: 12/4/2012 4:24:26 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
699699
But here, in this game, teams are playing under very different conditions sometimes.

Some managers have joined 10 seasons before you.
And some managers will start a team 10 seasons after you.
Of course, the first ones got more money than the second ones, and not because they are great vs inferior.
Teams with previous successes have earned it and should benefit from it a bit but the game needs to be balanced and welcoming to new/newer teams.

It's not about punishing but about balancing the gameplay.
This money was never "due", the rule was designed this way with a goal in mind and now the rule has changed.

This Post:
00
229555.30 in reply to 229555.29
Date: 12/5/2012 2:31:25 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
506506
A response to some of the questions also raised in this topic; (232173.31)

Advertisement