BuzzerBeater Forums

First - I'm glad you've opened this suggestion in Suggestions and not in bug, well done.

Second - I think as mentioned here before that we shouldn't compare between players and staff salaries. Teams paid players and staff salaries a few seasons back. BB made a change, letting teams avoid players salary in case they don't have an official game this week. This change was made not in order to make this game more realistic or less realistic, it was made as an economic adjustment as many teams found them self in an economic problem when they finished 5th or 8th in the league.

This change had a side effect. It made 5th place a "better" place (At least in the short run - as BB argue that 4th and 3rd place have a positive effect in terms of fans for next seasons)

Letting teams who don't have an official game this week not pay staff salary will only increase the above side effect, letting teams that finish 5th a greater advantage.

As I see it, this game is an online manager game for basketball - It tries to simulate a new "World" of basketball and it has it's own rules. There are many examples of differences between real basketball and BB - not everyone of them is a bug / something that needs to be fixed.

First - I first opened it in the bug forum (where it is belonged). This is a feature as the "blue screens" are a Microsoft feature...

Second - I think as mentioned here before that we shouldn't compare between players and staff salaries. Teams paid players and staff salaries a few seasons back. BB made a change, letting teams avoid players salary in case they don't have an official game this week. This change was made not in order to make this game more realistic or less realistic, it was made as an economic adjustment as many teams found them self in an economic problem when they finished 5th or 8th in the league.
This does not contradicts the fact that the staff salaries could be removed as well from those same weeks.

Not doing that keeps the surely exist side affect where the payment is irrationable.
A case where the market fires their staff (and that will be the right decision for a large part of the community at this case), means that the market is "broken", does not behave rationally, and needs a fix.

This one is a bug.
Not doing that, while the notion of firing at this case is being spread, will cause a storm of selling-buying of staff with no real reason doing so... except this bug.

This one is a bug.

First - I first opened it in the bug forum (where it is belonged). This is a feature as the "blue screens" are a Microsoft feature...

Well in a personal note, lucky you are not the ruler of all and you don't decide what is a bug and what is a feature. not here at least. Maybe in Microsoft... In case you want to decide that you can try and build your own online game or try and join BB development team - they were hiring way back...

Not doing that keeps the surely exist side affect where the payment is irrationable.
A case where the market fires their staff (and that will be the right decision for a large part of the community at this case), means that the market is "broken", does not behave rationally, and needs a fix.

I agree - a case where a market fires their staff as you explained is not neutral and might need to be fixed. I don't agree your suggestion is the right fix as it will have other effects as I wrote above.

This one is a bug.
Not doing that, while the notion of firing at this case is being spread, will cause a storm of selling-buying of staff with no real reason doing so... except this bug.

As I explained and many other managers explained this is not a bug. You writing that it is a bug won't make it a bug even if you'll write it again and again.

I doubt the current situation will cause a "storm of selling-buying" of staff as you wrote but some may indeed take advantage of this behavior.

This one is a bug.

You do realise that the BBs have consciously decided to make teams paying staff when they don't have an official game right? And you do realise that "consciously deciding" is the exact opposite of a bug, whatever you think of the quality of this decision, right?

By the way, why do you keep sending the same answers for weeks on each suggestion even if everyboby (everybody is the key word here) is telling you that the game doesn't need what you suggest?

If you really think that you represent "the voice of the real people" when everybody else posting here are liers

This one is a bug.

You do realise that the BBs have consciously decided to make teams paying staff when they don't have an official game right? And you do realise that "consciously deciding" is the exact opposite of a bug, whatever you think of the quality of this decision, right?

One could consciously be wrong.
Suggestions come to fix things that had been made consciously wrong or where never thought of.

If you really think that you represent "the voice of the real people" when everybody else posting here are liers

The users who participate here is not a sampling of the BB community in any way.
And even if all thinks the same except me, it does not prove that I am wrong. [Galileo Galilei]

This one is a bug.

You do realise that the BBs have consciously decided to make teams paying staff when they don't have an official game right? And you do realise that "consciously deciding" is the exact opposite of a bug, whatever you think of the quality of this decision, right?

One could consciously be wrong.
Suggestions come to fix things that had been made consciously wrong or where never thought of.

I'm glad we agree to the fact that this is not a bug but a suggestion.

If you really think that you represent "the voice of the real people" when everybody else posting here are liers

The users who participate here is not a sampling of the BB community in any way.
And even if all thinks the same except me, it does not prove that I am wrong. [Galileo Galilei]

I was sure you would use this Galileo argument...
But here, we're not speaking about "who says the truth" but about, in your own words, "satisfying costumers". And since you're the only one defending your ideas, satisfying pini is the exact opposite of satisfying costumerS.
And, again, if you think that people on this forum are not a good sampling of the BB community: prove it! (since I'm a nice guy, I gave you some tip in my previous post ;) )

Again the repetition of the sentence

This is not real life, this is a game

.
And once again I will need to repeat that then let's stop the three pointers, the fouls and the money issue. This is "just a game".

First - I'm glad you've opened this suggestion in Suggestions and not in bug, well done.

First - I first opened it in the bug forum (where it is belonged). This is a feature as the "blue screens" are a Microsoft feature...

If the documentation of the game were such that it stated that staff should not be paid in the offseason, but salaries were still being deducted in clear contradiction to the documentation, that would be a bug. When something occurs that is not inconsistent at all with the documentation or feature set of the game, but clashes with "the real world" or "Pini's competitive balance theory" or "how I'd like the game to be", that does not make it a bug.

Again the repetition of the sentence

This is not real life, this is a game

.
And once again I will need to repeat that then let's stop the three pointers, the fouls and the money issue. This is "just a game".

Great. The teams in the NBBA will be there for life. Everyone else will create players and then when they turn 21, if they're any good, they'll leave and you'll get nothing. Sign me up!