BuzzerBeater Forums

Charles try to solve the problems related to the final position in tournament. At the moment a team that closes in 6 position earn much more than those in 5th.
Also re-think a while about draft it is totally random, you can see how many teams are investing in scouts, so probably something is wrong there.
Last suggestion for the future is the salary related to the real power on the parquet; there are players that cost more than 200k/week, they are for sure strong but if you buy a 100k/week player you can see there is not too much gap between these players so why I've to pay 200k/week?

Till now good changes

@ all
I also dont understand the fascination with incentive for teams that play players from thier own country. This is an international game, why the subtle segregation?

Makes sense to me;look at Xavi and Iniesta Valdes; they are local heroes at Barcelona.It is pretty difficult to succeed at a top team; let alone one player from local. So if this guy indeed succeed in playing regular furst team. I can imagine people would want that to wear that jersey; aside from the supergreat Messi and Henry..

I can give numerous examples to the opposite. Living in LA I see the impact that Pau Gasol has had on the local fan base. Other than Kobe (for obvious reasons) the #1 jersey sold in LA is Gasol's. Considering the large percentage of spanish speaking people in LA, Gasol has captured many many Angelinos hearts. I hear Gasol on Spanish talk radio alot. If we look at Football look at all of the players playing for other countries. When I watch the English Premier league there are many many players not from England, I dont think it hurts thier revenue or fan base, o good player is a good player. Look at Beckham, playing in Spain, playing in LA, plays all over the place, and everywhere ho goes Beckham jerseys sell like crazy. Sorry, just dont buy it.

Another note; BB did not mention you are getting less from now..Only you will be getting more if indeed you would have a local hero...

Semantics. How is getting more money different from others getting less?

Last edited by Heathcoat at 6/2/2009 4:58:42 PM

Very clever ways of dealing with the most pressing issues. There's no way to please everyone, obviously, but I'm excited to see how these changes play out. Definitely moving in the right direction.

Semantics. How is getting more money different from others getting less?

In the long run, not much. But in the short run it's a huge difference. You have gotten accustomed to a regime in which you make X amount of money. If you make X-300k you might be in financial trouble even in meeting your running costs. Since your running costs stay the same, the fact that other people are getting more money only impacts you on the TL.

The impact on the TL is bigger than you suggest, imo. The ability to draw more from the TL and training than other managers is one of the main differences between contenders and also-rans, or should be. With more revenue not only can you get better players than the people chasing you but you can get the top trainees off of the TL, just by outbidding those not at the same pay scale as you. This is the crux of competion and promotion in this game, Better moves, purchases, training regimes, and trainees. These changes tip the scales even farther in favor of the teams at the top. Before you had to not only manage well to move up, but manage better than those above you who manage well also. If you were good enough to gain little bits of ground through good TL work over top teams, it is basically washed now because the team above you washes away these subtle gains through an influx of additional cash.

I think these changes are great. They have intervened thoughtfully on all the things that had to be changed to prevent the game from taking a bad turn and being populated with farm teams. I wish they changed the fan survey, but I'll just pretend it's not even there.

I would expect those managers allready at the top to like these changes, such as yourself. I would like them too were I there. The additional benefits for NT managers is something I am sure you prefer. With incentives for 'Stars" and NT players, it will entice more managers to one-position train and train/purchase and maintain NT players. Fantastic change for those who can afford NT players, not so great for the majority of us that are just trying to beat our local rival and put butts in the seats.

I belive that the more you widen a competitive gap between top teams and those under them, the more bots you will see. No chance=no fun to many from the middle and bottom of the ladder.

BB would have been threatened without changes and so I am basically happy to see changes. I am sure many managers would have quit with "suddenly" high wages versus rather low income. We all want many and happy managers in a growing game.

What bothers me is the one-sidedness of the changes.

I feel that managers with long-term strategy are rather punished and managers with short-term strategy are privileged. I am not even saying that long-term strategy is more clever (one might judge so, but it doesn't matter). But they should be treated equally at least.

One problem of short-term strategy (="win now!") was spending in players and wages, wages now exploding. Relief now is adapting income to cost, increasing non-arena income and lower arena income.

One problem of long-term strategy was having not the best players, but investing in in Arena (="win later"). Increasing non-arena income and lowering non-arena income makes these spendings worthless. Refunding of construction cost is a joke, because arena was ment to be a sustainable, profitable action for a long term.

Managers with long-term strategy have sold (or not bought) wage-monsters recently because it was evident that they were a threat to finances. Changes make that an obsolete decision, because income is by changes simply adjusted to spendings.

Training multiskilled players is a nice idea as well. Instead of training 3 more monster skill-ups and reaching the wage cap you can easily train a dozen skills of secondary/tertiary skill in order to have a more versatile - and cheaper - player. Necessity now? Hardly, at least not financially.

Given that the downside of short-term strategy was clearly foreseeable I am really disappointed by the one-sidedness of these changes. And I am not blaming managers but the BB team.

I am hopefully overseeing something, am I?







Last edited by Pallu at 6/2/2009 7:03:26 PM

I am sorry you resent what I said. I didnt mean it maliciously, it is just normal behavior for all of us to favor something that benefits us more than something that doesnt. I did not mean to imply you didnt look at it objectively, I was trying to state that teams in Division I would be more inclined to like these changes than those in IV. Just trying to discuss this, not enter into some kind of pissing match.

In regards to NT players, I was refering to your being a U21 coach, and that any changes that would give incentive to train National caliber players would benefit you as a U21 coach. Whether you care about that or not isnt for me to say, but the fact that it may improve the player pool you can recruit from is my point.

maybe we are more affected, but are they really better for us?

There are some disadvantage of the system, but like charles said it also have good oppurtunites so i would give it a try.

Edit: i hope it works also on small countrys, and in bot filled bottom leagues.


Last edited by CrazyEye at 6/2/2009 8:27:24 PM