BuzzerBeater Forums

so keep playing Sc thans or create a private league??

No, that is not what I mean by revenue neutral. What I mean is: if you add money somewhere, you have to take it from somewhere else. So, my example was to remove or diminish cup revenue in order to create larger and possibly more international tournaments.

What you have to remember is that the BBs are scaling the economy right now. They are not going to do anything that adds a significant amount of money to the game. That would create inflation and the goal right now is to have a constant economy.

I'm kind of new here, but when i signed up I was looking forward to being able to play abroad as well, then I learned about B3 and I was kind of pissed. But if that idea of yours does get out there I'd be much more encouraged I think it would be sweet to be part of worldwide competition. I support your idea Gil

Instead national tourneys, BB3 and international tourneys should all play together into a similar system and all should have a financial incentive for the teams involved.

honestly i rate the national tourney much higher then the international ones, because there you have much better abilities to chat with your opponent. And you also play opponent you normally won't play against.

There should be money to earn in the tourney games but I think it should be something more like the playoffs and based on arena revenue/teams- calculated in a similar way to TV revenue. This way there would not be any imbalance since you would be playing and getting paid based on the quality of competition, per league/level. Scrimmages, I feel, should also earn a very small amount of money for your club.

We had this in the past in the cup, and i am happy they changed it. And it doesn't work that way ;) Because this depends also on homecourt, so if you are a relative strong team in the competion, and have homecourt you get lot of money even when you play against a bot like opponent, when your league opponent maybe play a medium strength team away and have to put everything into the game get much less. Even when i don't get the hint with the tv revenue.

For this to work I think teams meeting certain criteria should be entered into different types of international tourneys, like BB3, and national tourneys should be standardized to have the same number of rounds (teams) regardless of country.

first you wanted to eliminate them, and now? Ok maybe this is the wednesday case, but how you want to play a national tournament from bahmamas in the length of the italian one and why?

Smaller countries would not have stictly national tourneys (because they have fewer teams), instead they might have invitational tourneys where some teams from other (see larger) countries would be entered.

or are asmaller countrys nearly all? So that they fit to the biggest 2-3 countrys?

I agree with you about national tourneys having a lot of meaning because people can speak the same language, however in sports when you are the best player in your country you end up being bilingual, look at Ichiro, having to go outside your country to find competition kind of comes with the turf of being a champ ;)

so we should create a international Competition dfor the champions, like the BBB ;)

You do have a good point though that national tourney is a place from people in their country to chat. Paper was suggesting elimination the nationl tourneys, I am suggesting keep them, but maybe not always have a team in them, if your team has qualified for something bigger, for example. You could still log in at that time (normal league game time for your country) to chat with your countrymen about your national tourney and the teams in it.

yeah but it getting less intresting when you don't participate, and the tournament you play the people speak French/Espagnol etc. All beautiful languages no question, but i don't understand them ;)

The whole of the teams in the tourney shoudl be looked at, like with league TV revenue, and so each round of the tourney's prize and the base amount you make for a game is determined

the tv revenue is in my eyes salary based, ok but now i got it because you started it with the PO example which are divided visitor income.

I think the Italian tourney should be smaller and maybe smaller countries larger. So that many italian teams would actually not be playing in their national tourneyment.

something i won't like, because national cups are for me more intresting because it gives me more feedback about my strentgth and more interacting betwen the managers.

he best few Italian teams would be in BB3 or other top-team oriented tourneys.

depending on position, this could be also a punishment. When the little lower ranked team are in average able to play more rounds, and win more money + the possibility to play tie. Why the succesful team, maybe end up in a competion who is stronger then him, so that he get kicked out fast(and don't profitate through the higher prices), and have to play normal with first lineup to have a chanche.

Ok Moderators, sorry if it seems I'm posting in two places including in the B3 thread, it seemed more active recently and I started posting there, then i found out 5 more replies came here so I do intend to best that I can to put it all in one place so from now on descriptions and notes on the format I will put here, responses on posts put in B3 I'll put there, I will put just this one message i posted in B3 also because I think it's important to acknowledge here

I put in database the list of all the countries in BuzzerBeater and the number of users for each country. Total of 50822 users are online. That means if 16834 users will be part of worldwide competition, 33% of the total users would be able to compete as part of it. So you look at a country like Spain with 5462 users, 33% of it is 1809 users. League I has 16, II has 64, III has 256, IV has 1024, and V has 4096. So you have all the I,II,III, IV qualify that's 1360 users right there. If you take take all those that made the finals in div V that's 512 in addition to 1360 users that's 1872. You usually will get a number that's more or less than the % indicates, but maybe if you get more technical about it then you can tweak a way to exactly get the best 1809 teams rather than have complaints about some countries have more/less users than the % which I know would happen and become a controversy, but if you come to think about it the inequality is even greater right now with B3 in the current settings.

The smallest country which is Barbados has 3 users, 33% of that is 1 users and that makes it so even in the smallest country of all countries, the uneven issue that B3 currently has won't be a problem in this, Bahamas (no offense sorry if taken) which had lowest rank representative in B3 was 12299 (according to season 14 B3 1st round rank) which fits just fine in the 16834 of best teams as opposed to the 144 teams in B3.

I personally don't think that anything really should be changed except to just add the worldwide competition. That means that if 1/3 of the teams play worldwide competition then yes 1/3 of the teams would have for at least 1 week up to 4 games a week. Thankfully this is lots of lines of computer code and not real life players, so playing many times a week and traveling half way across the world each week isn't an issue. It's more about the demand from real users so you know if you had 7 games a week it would be too demanding. Change in GS minutes can help but it's not that necessary and worth not doing it considering the drastic change it would require to compensate 4 games a week. Keep in mind thou that it's not 4 games a week for 14 weeks, by week 4 or 5, most of the teams would go back to the normal 2+Scr schedule after elimination, at least 3 games. To some 4 games a week might seem too much, or too little, but what's awesome about it, is that if you are the top 33% in the world then you must enjoy BB enough to want 4 games a week, those that don't get involved as much still get the regular current schedule, so it more opportunity for fun.

I do think that national tourneys and B3 should all stay the same, many love their national tournament too much that I can practically guarantee it won't be removed and its current settings in according to schedule relative to country size is fairest from participation and finance. I love that B3 did the new format that all teams play 8 games, it extends for everyone financial gain for 8 weeks to compensate lack of revenue might receive in the alternative of participating in the worldwide competition. I think B3 is great because there needs to be something that stands out that addresses the best play the best to stretch the competition, that's why they exist in the real world so I'm supportive of B3 as it is right now. Overall I'm trying to focus on making only the necessary changes that won't be too unstable modification by BB.

Last edited by Coach_Gil at 1/5/2011 12:15:33 PM

Paper was suggesting elimination the nationl tourneys,

My reason for that is you cannot add more money into the system. Maybe I am reading you wrong, but your suggestion seems to add more money into the BB economy (maybe a lot more?). Given that the current BB philosophy is to stop inflation, I seriously doubt any idea that adds money into the system would be considered.

Also, the BBs need to consider the burden on the end user. Currently there are about 3 competitive games per week for the average user (counting scrimmages). You add another game and that's four per week. Can the average user handle that?

Paper was suggesting elimination the nationl tourneys,

My reason for that is you cannot add more money into the system. Maybe I am reading you wrong, but your suggestion seems to add more money into the BB economy (maybe a lot more?). Given that the current BB philosophy is to stop inflation, I seriously doubt any idea that adds money into the system would be considered.

Also, the BBs need to consider the burden on the end user. Currently there are about 3 competitive games per week for the average user (counting scrimmages). You add another game and that's four per week. Can the average user handle that?

the more money wouldn't be a problem, because it should fix itself through salary, when this system is working. Also when looking at Transfer prices i think we have a deflation instead of a inflation. I don't see that much problems in this direction. the problem could be more a fair contribution of the income.

Last edited by CrazyEye at 1/5/2011 1:50:49 PM

the more money wouldn't be a problem, because it should fix itself through salary, when this system is working. Also when looking at Transfer prices i think we have a deflation instead of a inflation.

I think you are missing the point. The BBs want the market this way. If you follow what they are saying, the market is working exactly as they want it to. That's why the market is still being flooded with FAs.

That's also why: if any money is added to the system, it has to be removed somewhere else.

the problem could be more a fair contribution of the income.

Perhaps, if I can believe your assessment of the market.