BuzzerBeater Forums

Well, only my point of view.
The problem we percieve as a part of a big communitty is not the great competicion.
The problem is that we are playing with very narrow economic margins. I need to be connected at the morning, afternoon, evening to get in the TL the players / staff membres I need at a fair price because there are teams in some countries that are receiving more money than they need to make his job and are adulterating the prices. So I need to sacrifize a lot of hours to be economically competent. I was connected january 1 at 1 am to hire a staff member. I am sacrifizing a lot of time because the income - expense formula in the whole BB world is not correct and some teams are receaving more money than necessary.
If the economy of the teams of some countries would be as narrow as ours is, they would not be able to make the thing I say and all of us would live better.
The problem is that all of us use the same TL but some of us have lots of money to spend and other do not have nothing.
And you can say: but all of you are in the same economical situacion. OK, but I don´t want to be in a better economical situation than my league partners. I want to be in a better economical situacion in general.

Example (very simple to appreciate things in perspective):
There are only two countries in BB.
One of them has 2 teams. Every team has an income of 10. But his expenses are 8 so every team has a profit of 2.
The other country has another 2 teams. Every team has an income of 10. But his expenses are 6. Every team has a profit of 4.
The BB administrators can look at it at say: "hey, the income in the system is correct". All of them are getting 10. It´s balanced. We don´t need to do anything. This is not true. The teams of the first country are getting rapped in the TL.

Another example:
There are only two countries in BB.
One of them has 2 teams. Every team has an income of 11. But his expenses are 8 so every team has a profit of 3.
The other country has another 2 teams. Every team has an income of 9. But his expenses are 6. Every team has a profit of 3.

This is balanced. The money in the whole BB system is the same. But a differente distribution. This is what we ask for. We don´t want to be a easier path. We want to be trheated correctly, as the other countries managers are.
I dont want to be connected the january 1 at 1 am to hire an staff member as I were. I dont want to be more competitive than other in my league. I want that 1 hour that I dedicate to the game is valued as 1 hour dedicated to the for other countries peaple. Other countries peaple receive a lot of money without the job we need to do. And this is not fair from our point of view. People is tired of many and many ours taking care of the team when in other countries you don´t need the same effort to be as competitive as here.

Conclusion:
Do not want to play against bots. Simply want that is recognised that the tiem we spend in the game has the same value that the time other people spend in the game. Because right now we feel that in spain for example you need to use too many ours for notihng.
A new formula for the income that would take into account the realitty of every country/team as Josef Ka has expressed for example could be a beginning.

And that's all somehow the fault of users in small countries? Seriously...

edit: And yes, the whole point of the game is making plans for several seasons ahead. It's not an arcade, and it's not intended to provide instant gratification.


Last edited by GM-kozlodoev at 1/30/2010 9:54:44 AM

You're taking this personally while we're talking about rules and management of the game processes.

You're basically saying that I'm blaming you, and players from small countries, which is simply false. I'm talking about game mechanisms, not about people.

And that's all somehow the fault of users in small countries? Seriously...

It's not a fault but it's a problem of balance between reality very different. All must compete on equal terms in the B3 and the market (in same level of serie of different countries) and to do this we need to find something to rebalance the incomes according to the difficulty of the championships. Used as leverage by averaging the sum of the salaries of the series to determine the maximum turnout to the stadium of that serie might be a first move in what is a fair index of competitiveness of the series.
Alternatively you can implement a damper enthusiasm in attendance of the stadium is based on the reverse of the number of players in that nation.
Imagination does not lack but the will .... yes! When there is a good trader in Ghana will dominate everything we'll see if they will say the same!

All must compete on equal terms in the B3 and the market (in same level of serie of different countries)

You're at exactly the same terms as your immediate competition (the teams in the same level). I don't think the person that was complaining about division IV is exactly concerned about B3.

we need to find something to rebalance the incomes according to the difficulty of the championships

No, we don't. A champion from a small country with $200,000 in total weekly salaries from a small country is obviously weaker than the Italian champion who pays at least 2 or 3 times more. And the more the small country team catches up in team strength with the Italian, the less of a financial surplus he's going to run.

Alternatively you can implement a damper enthusiasm in attendance of the stadium is based on the reverse of the number of players in that nation.

Excellent, so that small-country teams can both be weak, and have no money to become better...

BB just implemented fixes in merchandising and TV revenue to somewhat adjust for country size and strength. I don't see anything else that will penalize teams just because they're in a small country.

Imagination does not lack but the will .... yes! When there is a good trader in Ghana will dominate everything we'll see if they will say the same!

Yeah, ok, we're all waiting for the Ghanaian apocalypse...

By the way, the situation in most online games is pretty similar: good players adapt to the game and win. The rest just want the game to get adapted to them.

You're taking this personally while we're talking about rules and management of the game processes.

You're basically saying that I'm blaming you, and players from small countries, which is simply false. I'm talking about game mechanisms, not about people.

This topic is about the advantage of teams in small countries, so I could only assume that you think implementing disadvantages for people in small countries will somehow help you.

In other news, game processes are exactly the same (or fairly similar) for teams that are in direct competition with each other -- that is, in the same division level of the same country. I don't want to be rude, but the fact you're having problems there is not a fault of the systemm.

(and yes, as I mentioned before, if you expect to be successful without a careful long-term plan, you're simply playing the wrong game)

Alternatively you can implement a damper enthusiasm in attendance of the stadium is based on the reverse of the number of players in that nation.

Excellent, so that small-country teams can both be weak, and have no money to become better...

BB just implemented fixes in merchandising and TV revenue to somewhat adjust for country size and strength. I don't see anything else that will penalize teams just because they're in a small country.

Fixes for country size is in my opinion completely wrong. Strength of division yes, but size absolutely no. If the competition and random salary of a division in a small country is as high as in a big country, the merchandise, tv-revenue, attendance should be the same for it to be fair. But it is not, alas preventing the salaries to become as high, so we can actually turn the title of this thread around and say that small countries is at a disadvantage to become great teams, preventing them to get the top notch players. Those teams are also the only ones competing with team out of their country, creating an unfair enviroment for small country teams in hard divisions. Yep, you heard me.

As time goes by the level of competition inevitable goes up in small countries as the country ages and the average age of teams goes up allowing them time to build their enterprises. As it is now, it is unfair for small countries because the cap indicates: less inhabitants equals less income, regardless of division strength and total salaries. I will write a letter suggesting to our king that we invade, say.. the Netherlands promptly, so we can have as good BB income as the biggest countries top divisions Now they are prevented to reach the same level. A calibration based heavily on the division strength would be most fair, with minor differences between divisions, mainly taken from TV-revenue and maximum arena prices.

Edit: to everyone, not just you, Kozlodoev.

Last edited by Svett Sleik (U21-Scout Norge) at 1/30/2010 12:18:05 PM

(and yes, as I mentioned before, if you expect to be successful without a careful long-term plan, you're simply playing the wrong game)

You are being rude and you are taking this personally: what you are saying is deliberately false or insulting.

1) I never said that managers in smaller countries are causing my dissatisfaction with game, while you said so;
2) I never said that I want to have a quick success, I just said that I like challenges but not 'missions impossible', but you certainly know me and my intentions much better than me;
3) you are now saying that we (because I'm not alone) want to create 'disadvantages' for managers in smaller countries, which is false: we want to understand if it's correct that as of this moment they have 'advantages';
4) as you know, the TL is global, so anyone of us is not only competing with other managers in the same country and in the same division, but also with other managers from other countries that maybe have a simpler access to economical resources and that, in this way, have an advantage in the markets and alter the common prices of players, but also trainers.

maybe we explained very bad the situation.

i play in a nation with 3 to 100 (or something like that) users, i need less money/good player to win every competion comparison to italy, spain or other nations with 2000 or more users. isn't it a truth?

if i have the same or a bit less income from merchandasing and the same flow to the palace comparison to big nations, but i can win EVERY game in my nation (hence a sold out palace with maximum prices) with lower salaried players comparison to big nations, where they must choise at least one game to lose because of the game shape (and the result is a lower, very lower palace income), do u think i'll have the same economy power, lower or higher?

i'm waiting for a reply, always if u have that


Last edited by ÐΞﮎ@þiﮎA at 1/30/2010 3:33:02 PM

1-3: these points are not really contributing to the issue, as I am sure you will realise when you read it again yourself. except maybe:

it's correct that as of this moment they have 'advantages'

Which the answer is... No. Read the whole thread again, considering every post into your reviewed opinion. There will be differences in buying power, but nothing that concerns you. If you succeed in your country to reach the top division and B3 you have bigger income potential and are actually at an advantage over smaller countries. I understand jealousy against those that get to start in division II-III, but every club in the world have to balance their salary against income*. If your roster salary leads you into negative numbers you are on the wrong path no matter what division you are playing. If this is a problem of a whole country, and the problem every country eventually will end up in, *it is finally the part of realism so many hunger for. Realism is not playing the game at "easy" difficulty. I wish I had a team in a big country, because what I am saying may come of as arrogant, but the point is valid even if we put individual teams out of the equation.

4) as you know, the TL is global, so any one of us is not only competing with other managers in the same country and in the same division, but also with other managers from other countries that maybe have a simpler access to economical resources and that, in this way, have an advantage in the markets and alter the common prices of players, but also trainers.

..if the default is that every team should be entitled to buy whatever player they wanted..? I'm not quite catching on. If a random div III/IV team from a big country get outbid by a random div I-III team from a smaller country you find it disturbing? Will not that player either be overestimated value on, or, cause the buying team to have a higher salary expence? That higher salary expence will lead them to having less buying power next time they are on the market, and so on. It will even out, but not straight away. But no matter what there will always be extremes in every end; the most advanced countries struggle with balancing economy, while the youngest and smallest countries struggle to keep up with the biggest countries. Beeing first in a country have always been an advantage, but after the latest adjustment that adresses league strength it is not so dramatic as before. The biggest difference between an old and a new country is that the newest country has what can be referred to as a gold rush, having the intended effect to draw users from that country to join, while an old country relies on great inventiveness and creativity to succeed. The other thing is that although we compete in the same TL, we do not use the players acquired through it in the same surrounding, so the player not affordable by one division does not compete in the same enviroment, making the level of players available to the division lower, but still relatively equal for those teams it concerns.

if the default is that every team should be entitled to buy whatever player they wanted..?

Did I say that?

If a random div III/IV team from a big country get outbid by a random div I-III team from a smaller country you find it disturbing? Will not that player either be overestimated value on, or, cause the buying team to have a higher salary expence?

Are you considering the possibility that the buying team has an economical condition (e.g. less competitive league, less losses, possibility to have a fruitfully larger arena) to sustain that additional salary expense?

My point of view is that this unbalance has a deeper impact on the economy than what you think.

It would be nice to discuss this, without overturning statements, patronizing, doing cheap rhetoric, and making sterile personal attacks.