BuzzerBeater Forums

BB Global (English) > Season 6 Changes

Season 6 Changes

Set priority
Show messages by
This Post:
00
40617.229 in reply to 40617.225
Date: 8/3/2008 10:41:25 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
576576
It's best to think long term for any team in any division, IMO. If shelling out money to win a few rounds in an extremely competitive tournament doesn't provide a good return on that money, then I wouldn't do it.

I'd have liked to sacrificed everything to go for it in the B3 (selling off trainees, ignoring league/cup games, etc), but I knew the US cup and league games were the "bread and butter" for my team in the long run.

It's too early to tell how these economic changes will effect everyone and the managers that adapt will do better.

"Well, no ones gonna top that." - http://tinyurl.com/noigttt
This Post:
00
40617.230 in reply to 40617.226
Date: 8/3/2008 10:50:45 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
576576
I've had my team for 2 full seasons now. At maximum prices, I barely started tipping full attendance of my original arena midway to the season. I have been expanding ever since, and I am maintaining full attendance at maximum prices right now at 5700 seats or thereabout.


Apples to oranges, you've in lower divisions, and we're comparing teams in top divisions of new countries correct? STH growth at lower divisions isn't comparable to STH in top divisions, unless I'm vastly overestimating the growth of STH's for teams that start in new countries at the top level.

I just don't understand some of the dire end-of-the-world comments coming out here, and so far, there's little evidence that it's nothing more then hyperbole.

This is a big change, and fairly or not, some manager will be hit harder then others. I don't expect the BB's to refund portions transfer fees to managers that recently paid large sums for players at market rate, while the market rate is now set to take a steep decline due to these changes. Also, without good evidence of completely unlevel playing fields or economic environments that are impossible, I don't expect the BB's to make different rules for different countries.

"Well, no ones gonna top that." - http://tinyurl.com/noigttt
This Post:
00
40617.231 in reply to 40617.230
Date: 8/3/2008 11:02:25 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
225225
I've had my team for 2 full seasons now. At maximum prices, I barely started tipping full attendance of my original arena midway to the season. I have been expanding ever since, and I am maintaining full attendance at maximum prices right now at 5700 seats or thereabout.


Apples to oranges, you've in lower divisions, and we're comparing teams in top divisions of new countries correct? STH growth at lower divisions isn't comparable to STH in top divisions, unless I'm vastly overestimating the growth of STH's for teams that start in new countries at the top level.

I just don't understand some of the dire end-of-the-world comments coming out here, and so far, there's little evidence that it's nothing more then hyperbole.

This is a big change, and fairly or not, some manager will be hit harder then others. I don't expect the BB's to refund portions transfer fees to managers that recently paid large sums for players at market rate, while the market rate is now set to take a steep decline due to these changes. Also, without good evidence of completely unlevel playing fields or economic environments that are impossible, I don't expect the BB's to make different rules for different countries.

I am in DII, which is one of the levels that is being taxed. I have a realistic chance to promote to DI too.

Of course some teams will be more affected than others. I thought the goal was to affect the largest arenas the most, since they pump the largest portion of excess funds into the game.

I am not suggesting different rules for different countries, since this is not necessary at all. Just implement the tax as maintenance per seat. This way you give the chance of small teams to catch up without taxing them for excess income they don't have. This way you're really taxing the source of the income and not taxing teams simply for being in a higher division.

You'd excuse me if I feel strongly about someone trying to do brain surgery with a pickaxe.

"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."
This Post:
00
40617.232 in reply to 40617.229
Date: 8/3/2008 11:02:39 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
196196
well i guess if we knew further in advance the touranment / potential prize money we could all design a plan.... if they have settled on the money for each round why can they just not release this information... they shot out the blocks with the 40% 25%... they couldve easily said - we will start applying a tax on gate receipts... why be specific with what they are taking but not with what they are giving?

from my perspective i am glad i invested in arena... but did i make a great management decision or was I lucky? I think a bit of both.....

This Post:
00
40617.233 in reply to 40617.228
Date: 8/3/2008 11:08:14 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
576576
The designed measure tax income a nominal 40%, and plan to compensate by allowing for increased attendance.


And at this point, with no evidence about the attendance change other then a couple comments from the news items:

As part of this system, there will be a new system governing attendance which will hopefully be more predictable, easier to understand, and with less variance from game to game. This system will take effect at the start of next season, and the overall global attendance will be the same as it is right now.


While the new attendance formula will leave the global average attendance in the same spot, the opponent's fan base will have a larger impact, which will result in higher-division teams seeing slightly higher attendance.


Please, fill me in if I'm missing something, maybe there was further clarification from the BB's that provide some more detail on this "slight higher attendance".

Last edited by brian at 8/3/2008 11:09:20 AM

"Well, no ones gonna top that." - http://tinyurl.com/noigttt
This Post:
00
40617.234 in reply to 40617.231
Date: 8/3/2008 11:19:47 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
576576
You'd excuse me if I feel strongly about someone trying to do brain surgery with a pickaxe.


This analogy applies across the board though, we're all taking a big hit, and it's much more complex then this isolated issue.

There is also the point that established teams are the driver in top players with top salaries, steadily training become more and more expensive as salaries start to grow at a higher rate. How will top teams survive, they are doomed with the pending expenses while have revenue greatly reduced!

There's the potential skill cap, established teams are or will be having players start to hit there caps, how can top teams survive this, they are doomed!

I overstated the emphasis on these last two examples cause, at this point, it's only realistic concern. But, as a realistic concern it also adds to the issues established teams have to deal with that newer teams don't.

"Well, no ones gonna top that." - http://tinyurl.com/noigttt
This Post:
00
40617.235 in reply to 40617.233
Date: 8/3/2008 11:21:19 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
225225
Here is what the news item clarifying the economic changes says:
Further, we're not taking away 40% of all income. While the new attendance formula will leave the global average attendance in the same spot, the opponent's fan base will have a larger impact, which will result in higher-division teams seeing slightly higher attendance.


Additionally, during the initial round of forum discussion when the BBs were actively involved, it was mentioned that the actual decrease in revenue is supposed to be close to 25%. That's everything I know in terms of numbers concerning the upcoming changes.

From this one can easily infer an expected 25% increase in attendance -- you need to increase base income by 25% in order to end up with 75% of base income after a 40% nominal tax.

Hopefully, this is not too confusing. It is also just an educated guess from the bits and pieces of information I caught in the forums.



"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."
This Post:
00
40617.236 in reply to 40617.235
Date: 8/3/2008 11:24:31 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
196196
if you were to hazard a guess would you say that a 25% increase in attendence could translate to being able to raise ticket prices by 25% instead?

edit - sorry either one OR the other..

Last edited by Superfly Guy at 8/3/2008 11:25:10 AM

This Post:
00
40617.237 in reply to 40617.234
Date: 8/3/2008 11:25:37 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
225225
You'd excuse me if I feel strongly about someone trying to do brain surgery with a pickaxe.


This analogy applies across the board though, we're all taking a big hit, and it's much more complex then this isolated issue.

There is also the point that established teams are the driver in top players with top salaries, steadily training become more and more expensive as salaries start to grow at a higher rate. How will top teams survive, they are doomed with the pending expenses while have revenue greatly reduced!

There's the potential skill cap, established teams are or will be having players start to hit there caps, how can top teams survive this, they are doomed!

I overstated the emphasis on these last two examples cause, at this point, it's only realistic concern. But, as a realistic concern it also adds to the issues established teams have to deal with that newer teams don't.

These measures are implemented precisely because top teams are still way behind the perceived cap. If they were close to the cap we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Having in mind that the measures will slowly be relaxed as team salaries increase, I don't think the survival of top teams is up for scrutiny here.

Just for the record, I do have a DI team in Hattrick, so I know full well how the situation pans out in the long run.

"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."
From: Bunter

This Post:
00
40617.238 in reply to 40617.234
Date: 8/3/2008 11:59:04 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
2323
Of course you are not worried about the future of BB. You just want us to understand that what ever decision is best for You, is also best for everyone.

That's why I also think this BB will be, at the end, the "international" league between USA and Italy.

Egoistic thinking is NOT always a virtue!

edit: Please stay on topic. This thread is not meant for political discussions. Thanks.

Last edited by GM-kozlodoev at 8/3/2008 12:47:00 PM

This Post:
00
40617.239 in reply to 40617.237
Date: 8/3/2008 12:02:12 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
576576
The only thing that I've learned from this discussion is teams from new/newer countries in top divisions may or may not be afflicted worse then teams from other top divisions, depending on how they invested their profits.

Most of this appears to be due to some confusion on how much a "slight increase" in attendance really is. It's hard to say how a 40% decrease in tick rev, 60% decrease in TV money, and an undisclosed change in how cup/b3 revenue comes to equal only 25% decrease overall. You're right, it would require a large increase in attendance to offset this, but that's in direct contradiction of the comments from the news items.

Seems that you're jumping to conclusions. I've played hattrick for 12-13 seasons and one of the things I really like about BB is success in the league is rewarded. On the other hand, at one point choosing to avoid promotion to DII, I'd learned that success is not rewarded, and am now doing much better financially in DIV. HT is also really boring in the sense is pays not to succeed, though we'll see how their recent changes in the past couple seasons play out before giving up on the game.

"Well, no ones gonna top that." - http://tinyurl.com/noigttt
Advertisement