BuzzerBeater Forums

a small arena is 5000 seats. A big arena is 40000 seats. Filling your arena next season will be a function of your win-loss record, your fan survey, and your ticket prices. You should do what you think is best for your team.

don't forget they give you 100% money back, so if you build to much you could go back if you build to less you have still to build it.

So this season it si a good decision to put unused money into the arena.

i think a good size of arena will be around 25k,

right now im still aiming for that and continue to buld my arena :D

This discussion has been superb -- it is a pleasure to be competing with people who are capable of bringing this sort of understanding / analysis to the game.

I understand the problem to be one of compensating with an extraordinary windfall those teams who are already blessed. It's as though the government were to suddenly place a cap on housing prices and forced the richest to sell their homes -- but at the price they paid for it. So Bill Gates gets his 100 million back, free to spend, while suffering the indignities of having to live like the rest of us.

That said, may I offer what appears to me to be an alternative, possible solution? Could we instead view the diminishing seating capacity of the more successful teams as creating a surge in demand for TV viewing? That we (ha! -- I mean the math whizzes who run this game) figure out a way of prorating a TV "bonus" for those teams who sacrifice / destroy seats. As a suggestion, maybe a 5% bonus for every 2500 seats; and that this bonus would diminish over time (say 5 seasons)? This way, the rich teams would get their investment back, but not at once. And, if TV revenues are a function of performance, then the rich team would have an incentive to maintain their performance levels, not receive a windfall that almost any idiot could use to boost their team's abilities.

I suppose the idea is just as the returns from the increased seating capacity is a gently rising curve, so should the returns from the diminished seating capacity be a gently falling curve.

don't forget they give you 100% money back, so if you build to much you could go back if you build to less you have still to build it.

While there has been some posts in the BB-forums alluding to this, I will only believe it for sure when I see it posted in the News section by BB-Charles. But that's just me.

From: BB-Forrest

To: Kivan (NT-Scout)
93604.173 in reply to 93604.169
Date: 6/15/2009 11:12:41 PM
we meant you will get back 100% of what you paid for it.


That seems to be a bit more than an allusion.

i think wil be beter to put 500.000not 300.000for start!!

From: BB-Forrest

To: Kivan (NT-Scout)
93604.173 in reply to 93604.169
Date: 6/15/2009 11:12:41 PM
we meant you will get back 100% of what you paid for it.


That seems to be a bit more than an allusion.

Maybe it is. This still doesn't change my position on the issue, but that's just me.

Denial works great until the moment it doesn't.

Denial works great until the moment it doesn't.

Well, the last I've heard from BB-Charles is that the refund might be less than 100%, so until I manage to get a hold of him to confirm the figure, I take nothing for granted.

i hope they stay to their word, i just paid a new supporter package.