BuzzerBeater Forums

Haven't we had enough of these suggestions yet? Same thing keeps coming p over and over again. People come with counter arguments and gets the same arguments we seen in 10+ threads already thrown at them.
The suggestion is out there for the BB's to see. Lets do the right thing and close this clone.

Each suggestion is different, the reason for all of them is the same. :+> :+) :=>

The reason, in case you've forgotten:
1) On season-17, there was not a single team on DIV-I of neither France, Spain nor Italy, who had joined later than season-four. [All where from the first 4 seasons. None from the later 13!!!]
2) Last season, at the German league, the order teams had finished had been exactly upon the order those teams joined the game.

And those are the main reason why this game does not grow above that ~50K users.
When the system does not let the users to compete upon their abilities, then they will not stay part of that game.

In case you did not understood, I can repeat...

Last edited by Pini פיני at 4/11/2012 3:08:20 PM

Another question that needed to be answered - does a team earn money each year, or just losses money?

serious first division team loose money, players getting older, salaries need to be paid and mostly exceells the income, the arena ;) So that the reason why so many old team are there, yes you need some time to have an first division enviroment, but playing at high level means in 90% of the cases to lose money.

Because the people that signed up in season 5 had to compete with people who were there from seasons 3 and 4 (which appear to be the first in Spain). And then those who sign up in season 6 had to compete with all of those, etc. But I'll address this more in a little bit -- see what I bold in the below:

What that got to do with?
It is a league - they all are in competition with one another.
The only differdence - the design of the game causes that old teams have much more money, and hence the competition impossible.
There where 13 seasons with a lot of teams between season 4 and season 17.
In Spain, Italy and Fracne there where only teams from those first four seasons (1-4).
Not a single team from 13 seasons. All from the other first four...
Summarizes it.

Yes, there were 13 seasons, but a team that joined in season 14 for example would not be able to get to the top league by season 17, so you're already arguing from a flawed base with that. So what you're really saying is that no team from seasons 5-13 were not in the top division by season 17 (though I suppose, in theory, you could have seen teams in season 14 placed in IV). And going straight from V-IV-III-II-I is practically an unreasonable expectation as well; a fairly ambitious projection would be a team promoting every two seasons -- meaning a team joining later than season 9 could not reasonably expect to make it to the top (they'd spend 9-10 in V, 11-12 in IV, 13-14 in III, 15-16 in II and promote for season 17). Suddenly your 13 seasons are reduced to five, and even that group requires very optimistic appraisals of how long it takes to promote.

But the "what does that have to do with it" thing is related to the thing you're overlooking - teams don't magically promote to I. To get to I, you have to get through II, and to get to II, you need to get through III, etc. And those levels are filled with other managers who are trying to do the same. So if 16 very good managers get into a league in III and make it difficult for the others to promote, that's not the fault of the guys in I -- that's just the nature of promotion and relegation. Eventually the teams that deserve it will make it up, and then adjust to the new level of challenge or fail.

[You did not understand (or did not want to understand)...
I said - In case there are two users managers with the same BB-managing skills, but one of them joined earlier, then the other one has no chance against him, and that user will always be his wall.
In practice, the situation is much worse, and users that are worse BB-managers will succeed more in case they joined the game earlier.

And if the new user is no better a manager than the old user, there is no reason at all that it is a problem for him to never pass the other. (Though, of course, getting "identical" managers is impossible). But can you point to one of these "worse" managers who succeeds in spite of a "better" manager, who you may also identify? If this is such a problem in the game environment, surely you must have plenty of documented examples to illustrate the problem, other than of course your mantra about join date in four specific leagues. Show us that better managers are truly being disadvantaged by the system, rather than just citing dated statistics that are quite sensible indeed given the league structures in place.

Last edited by GM-hrudey at 4/11/2012 3:08:23 PM

Another question that needed to be answered - does a team earn money each year, or just losses money?

serious first division team loose money, players getting older, salaries need to be paid and mostly exceells the income, the arena ;) So that the reason why so many old team are there, yes you need some time to have an first division enviroment, but playing at high level means in 90% of the cases to lose money.

And that explains why they don't get broke, but only get more dominant and unbeatable by newer teams..
Yeah... Right...Sure...

In case you forgot:
Last season (as far as I remember), the order of the teams in Germany first division had been exactly upon order they had joined the game.
It must be because they are "losing" money each season.
It is known fact that "losing" money makes the team stronger, because they "try harder", or something like that...

maybe the younger teams should buy older rosters ;) But this is more for the help forum, to explain that for you.

I still remember you saying, that those palyer doesn't loose value, when i just sold him:

(4587237) which you even used as example ;)

Another long time player for my team: (4595070) sure they gain value ... And yes selling him gave me still money, to survive evenw ith a bigger pay check for a while, in buying a cheaper player with a bigger salary. And while i was looking for him i even earned some money.


Last edited by CrazyEye at 4/11/2012 3:30:02 PM

Yes, there were 13 seasons, but a team that joined in season 14 for example would not be able to get to the top league by season 17, so you're already arguing from a flawed base with that. So what you're really saying is that no team from seasons 5-13 were not in the top division by season 17 (though I suppose, in theory, you could have seen teams in season 14 placed in IV). And going straight from V-IV-III-II-I is practically an unreasonable expectation as well; a fairly ambitious projection would be a team promoting every two seasons -- meaning a team joining later than season 9 could not reasonably expect to make it to the top (they'd spend 9-10 in V, 11-12 in IV, 13-14 in III, 15-16 in II and promote for season 17). Suddenly your 13 seasons are reduced to five, and even that group requires very optimistic appraisals of how long it takes to promote.

Even when you are trying to reduce it with a logic with no base, you still get 25% of BB-community with only teams from the first four division and not the other later five (you narrowed down into) at those first divisions.

Although much less important, why did you decided that two seasons is the number?
Does a good BB-manager should have trouble on the lowest divisions?
I mean, when neglecting the current state where what is main importance for promoting is not the quality of the BB-manager but the date he joined...

So basically, once again, you didn't explained that.

And if the new user is no better a manager than the old user, there is no reason at all that it is a problem for him to never pass the other.

No one said differently.
But what you didn't answer again is the other case that currently exists.

Two users, with the same BB-managing qualities, that had joined at two different seasons, will never be able to compete, and the one who had joined first will forever be before the later one.

But can you point to one of these "worse" managers who succeeds in spite of a "better" manager, who you may also identify? If this is such a problem in the game environment, surely you must have plenty of documented examples to illustrate the problem

For doing that, we will need to go over each desicion one have made and give a score for that.
This is not practical.

You are trying an arguement that is equal to the question "prove that you don't have a sister".
No matter what you will say about that, you couldn't prove it wrong.

What can be asked, and still haven't been explained is how does the cases I've brought, about Spain, Italy, France and Germany [More than 25% of the BB-community], can happen if the system is OK, and there is no competitiveness problem on this game who gives older teams an misfair advantage.

maybe the younger teams should buy older rosters ;) But this is more for the help forum, to explain that for you.

I still remember you saying, that those palyer doesn't loose value, when i just sold him:

(4587237) which you even used as example ;)

Another long time player for my team: (4595070) sure they gain value ... And yes selling him gave me still money, to survive evenw ith a bigger pay check for a while, in buying a cheaper player with a bigger salary. And while i was looking for him i even earned some money.

Edit2: Typical Weekly Net Income: $ -269 029, and yes it is biased, since i wouldn't bought Nuno if i don't try to run for the B3, which cost me roughly 100k each week. ;)

It is nice of you giving a single week example that is not relevnat to anything.

In case you are losing money each season, you would get broke.
Unless, your advantage is not by growing each season, but because you have such a big amount of money in the bank that you can allow those losses.
And those money had been gained on those same seasons that gave you the benefit, and in any case creates the same uncompeititve problem.

To win a B3, one needs to invest much more than ususal, and may lose money for that.
That team will not do it each season, and when they do it is because they have such a big cushion that it will not matter in the long run.
So in any case - Not relevant.

The reason, in case you've forgotten:

How can anyone forget those words? You spam them in each and every thread several times.
And i find it hard to see why this is the reasons this game is not growing. It takes time to catch up to a team that has been here for almost 15 seasons. If one could in no time this game sure would be doomed.

Is this your answer why in France, Italy, Spain (etc.) there where teams only from season 1-4 but not a single one from season 5, nor 6, nor 7, nor 8, nor 9, nor 10, nor 11, nor 12, nor 13, nor 14, nor 15, nor 16, nor 17...

Why a season-5 team cannot get to the first division after twelve seasons!!!
The answer - the competitiveness issue raised here - they have less money (and will always have) comparing to a team with a manager, with the same BB-managing skills, who joined the game earlier (even by a single season as we saw)...