BuzzerBeater Forums

I really didnt want to insult you, and if you feel like that English is not my 1st language as its not yours too. Some misunderstandings can happen. If i insulted you i apologize.

well i've never talked about my team, it's you who started saying that i can't advance to II and other stuff like that
i accept your apologize

Now on our subject. 1st you are not in a position to judge what is fun for us and what its not. 2nd in my case i have plenty competition from 4-5 teams in my league, and due the hard work of a few persons soon will be even greater.

i'm not in position to judge, i only read the other posts in the thread
like, for example, this post by YOU (but it's not the only one on the thread, just the more recent)

Still you cant convince me that we are the problem that you cant advance a division. I can understand that is really frustrating to try so hard to get so less (wining side, because you have many more benefits fun wise compared to us) but thats your problem not ours...

and i really, really, REALLY hope every bb-nation including cyprus will reach its maturity very fast
sadly i don't see it happening everywhere in short time. you know why? because we're waiting for it since before you even started playing, and the situation hasn't changed much globally

I can understand your frustrations, but i cant see how they will be solved if you erase from the competition on transfer/staff list the 1-2% of the community. Do you really think that if we are getting less profit your life will be easier?

honestly? yes, i think my "bb-life" would be easier with less money on the market
of course not taking money away from you, just by having all the first division teams filled with high salary players
but that's a subject i'm not interested in discussing at the moment

I guess there would be ways to do it while preserving the country set up. Like LA-Emilio proposed above (129389.63), there could be an attendance-deflator based on team salary. for example for a league 1 team it could look something like this:
team salary 500k+ -> max achievable arena income c. 650k (unchanged; attendance using the current formulas)
team salary 400k -> max arena income c. 580k
team salary 300k -> max arena income c. 510k
team salary 200k -> max arena income c. 440k
team salary 100k -> max arena income c. 370k
..so that being salary efficient would still pay off, as would owning an efficient arena, but if you want to convince the local crowd that your are a big-time franchise in our global league system you have to spend a bit on star power every week (and our crowds care about sensational paychecks, not a player's performance), no matter whether you are in Tuvalu or Los Angeles. for lower leagues all the max achievable incomes would be lower, in line with the current proportions between league levels.

sorry for missing this post..
i liked your idea very much but i think it should be modified in a better way..
the deciding factor should be league's average salary, not the team salary..
a low-salary team who can be successful in a strong division should be awarded..
if we think about "small countries", for example Japan, league's average salary would help weaker teams in the division as Sharman's high salary will increase their weekly income so they can reach him faster (isn't that what everybody wants?)..
can you think of any downsides..?

This is the best posible solution I have read.

erase from the competition

never gonna happen unless those teams cheat. continued->

on transfer/staff list the 1-2% of the community.

when estimating numbers it is always handy to have something solid in hand to support the estimations. If not, it is often best not to make estimations.

Either way, I don't think that the solution, IF the problem lies in the structure as opposed to lacking infrastructure in comparison to player salaries (although they may be related to some extent), for those teams that has a negative balance is to buy more and better paid players as that would lead to a rapid downfall. Would it not be better to step down on salaries for a while, upgrade arena, and then stand on stronger ground than the opposition?

If the claim is that teams from smaller countries buy expencive players, then it would level out, eventually. We still see ring effects of the arena downgrades. Soon we will see a little more from the ones that had above 500 and 50 of the best seats, but it will be on a much lesser scale. I think (and hope) the free agents will possibly stay a little longer.

the deciding factor should be league's average salary, not the team salary..
a low-salary team who can be successful in a strong division should be awarded..
if we think about "small countries", for example Japan, league's average salary would help weaker teams in the division as Sharman's high salary will increase their weekly income so they can reach him faster (isn't that what everybody wants?)..
can you think of any downsides..?

The only downside is that no one would want to train (and pay) high level senior NT players...

Last edited by Svett Sleik (U21-Scout Norge) at 1/29/2010 7:48:21 PM

Had Torooo been less successful would oueftete and the chasing pack improved as fast to the levels they are at now? Taking that further had Torooo not shown global dominance at the level he had would chasing teams like mine pushed as hard to try and close the gap using whatever means possible?

As a result of this if a small country (Canada with 750+ now I dont consider small!) with leading teams will often deter growth and I think another problem not yet addressed is how to market and get more sign-ups in the small userbase countries.

Signing into a small country can be considered great but if you are in the same division as BB powerhouse then you will get pounded regularly and then as we've seen in Japan this leads to people quitting early or attempting to cheat to try bridge the gap.

I would consider each unique new user that signs up in a small country a very valuable commodity and little things like amending the rules to reflect the changes that have taken place over the seasons and providing these new players with support so they rise to the challenge of the location they have arrived in are far more important.

I bet the small v big country financial advantage doesnt even cross a new managers mind when they enter - they just see who's at the top and can I get there. If no then they will likely not commit to the game in general. This is far more unhealthy in my opinion.

Very nice post Superfly! I agree with all of what you have said, and I am a relitively new manager.

Which particular part of the problem do you expect to get fixed?

Teams with high income and crappy players will always be in better position to spend on the transfer market -- that's not anything that's going to change, so don't hold your breath.

really? didn't you write this about... 2 posts before?

Yes, I did, but you apparently missed the point.

Weak teams will get better players, and become better teams. However, there will always be weaker teams that run on profits, and those will always be able to bid more.

That's life -- the game is created so that the weaker teams are able to catch up, not so that the strong teams become stronger all the time.

Rinse, repeat. Problem solved.

i never held my breath, of course
there's a reason italians don't write in global as much as before, and it's answers like yours

I don't recall Italians ever posting in the forums much anyhow. And in any case, this game is designed for the enjoyment al 50,000l users, not only for the Italians.

I guess there would be ways to do it while preserving the country set up. Like LA-Emilio proposed above (129389.63), there could be an attendance-deflator based on team salary. for example for a league 1 team it could look something like this:
team salary 500k+ -> max achievable arena income c. 650k (unchanged; attendance using the current formulas)
team salary 400k -> max arena income c. 580k
team salary 300k -> max arena income c. 510k
team salary 200k -> max arena income c. 440k
team salary 100k -> max arena income c. 370k
..so that being salary efficient would still pay off, as would owning an efficient arena, but if you want to convince the local crowd that your are a big-time franchise in our global league system you have to spend a bit on star power every week (and our crowds care about sensational paychecks, not a player's performance), no matter whether you are in Tuvalu or Los Angeles. for lower leagues all the max achievable incomes would be lower, in line with the current proportions between league levels.

sorry for missing this post..
i liked your idea very much but i think it should be modified in a better way..
the deciding factor should be league's average salary, not the team salary..
a low-salary team who can be successful in a strong division should be awarded..
if we think about "small countries", for example Japan, league's average salary would help weaker teams in the division as Sharman's high salary will increase their weekly income so they can reach him faster (isn't that what everybody wants?)..
can you think of any downsides..?

This is the best posible solution I have read.

I also agree, these two ideas combined seem like the most elegant solution posted so far. It makes some sense too, from a real life perspective: You can have a bunch of different divisions in your country but if they all have crappy players, people aren't going to pay way more just because you decide to call one of them 'Division I'. Example= American Soccer.