BuzzerBeater Forums

Suggestions > Fix #3/#4 vs #5 imbalance

Fix #3/#4 vs #5 imbalance

Set priority
Show messages by
From: thylacine

This Post:
00
229555.27 in reply to 229555.26
Date: 12/4/2012 1:33:49 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
9191
Plus it is already difficult enough to maintain competitive balance. The top teams tend to stay on the top because they get more money than anyone else. This will help even that out.

So you wanna punish successful teams? It doesn't make sense.
It should be difficult to maintain competitive balance, that's the point of it!
You get more money if you're a better manager.
If you're a great manager, why do you have to pay to inferior managers, so they don't feel hard done by?
It's ridiculous, as is the notion that you can't reward ambitious (=active) teams with extra imaginary money.

From: Jay_m

This Post:
00
229555.28 in reply to 229555.27
Date: 12/4/2012 4:20:42 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
216216
I think you are not aware of the situation in the higher leagues. Very often a team tanks for a few seasons and builds up a big roster which allows them to coast for several seasons, helped by getting more money every season from a variety of sources including Cup, B3, and tournament games. Now, the differential in money from the league has been evened up.

The structure of any game should be that the winners are penalized for the next season. In the NBA, this occurs through the draft and through increasing salaries. Here, even if you are lucky enough to get a good rookie, he can have no impact on your team. You buy a great guy off the market for $3mil, his salary, if anything, will go down.

Unless you can maintain a churn in the leaders, everyone gets bored after a few seasons, including the first place teams. The real reward should be in winning, not in trying to maximize your bank balance.

This Post:
00
229555.29 in reply to 229555.27
Date: 12/4/2012 4:24:26 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
699699
But here, in this game, teams are playing under very different conditions sometimes.

Some managers have joined 10 seasons before you.
And some managers will start a team 10 seasons after you.
Of course, the first ones got more money than the second ones, and not because they are great vs inferior.
Teams with previous successes have earned it and should benefit from it a bit but the game needs to be balanced and welcoming to new/newer teams.

It's not about punishing but about balancing the gameplay.
This money was never "due", the rule was designed this way with a goal in mind and now the rule has changed.

This Post:
00
229555.30 in reply to 229555.29
Date: 12/5/2012 2:31:25 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
506506
A response to some of the questions also raised in this topic; (232173.31)

From: thylacine

This Post:
11
229555.31 in reply to 229555.28
Date: 12/5/2012 3:51:19 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
9191
New managers won't have a chance to play for NBBA title and B3 the first seasons. They're put in the lowest division. Is this unfair?

But it's not even the point. Why does #1 team have to pay to #4 team? It's got nothing to do with who's been in the league the longest.
How about no arena revenues for #1 seed?! They must be good, maybe they're too good, dominating poor new teams something bad! They'll be alright anyway, let's even the playing field out!

This Post:
00
229555.32 in reply to 229555.31
Date: 12/5/2012 4:10:46 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
32293229
But it's not even the point. Why does #1 team have to pay to #4 team? It's got nothing to do with who's been in the league the longest.

How about no arena revenues for #1 seed?! They must be good, maybe they're too good, dominating poor new teams something bad! They'll be alright anyway, let's even the playing field out!


I see you graduated from the "Nuke 'em all and let God sort them out" school of rhetorical debate.

It is still better to finish first than second, better to finish second than third, and better to finish third than fourth. It's not quite so excruciatingly better than before, and there's of course room for disagreement on the fourth vs. fifth issue, but to say that teams deserve special bonuses for finishing first or second in addition to home court advantage (and the resulting increased probability of future income-earning games) and then treating the removal of said bonus as a travashamockery is a bit dramatic.

This Post:
00
229555.33 in reply to 229555.31
Date: 12/5/2012 6:12:26 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
699699
The goal is to produce balanced rules.

All that teams have, from 1st to 8th, is what BB has created and let them have in an effort to produce coherent and balanced rules.
The fake economic conditions and the rules are part of this canvas.

I welcome this small change that helps the revaluation of 4th after 5th was made too attractive consecutively to a previous rule change. It took long but better late than never.
Healthy games have frequent modifications of rules, new or unforeseen situations arise that have to be dealt with.

BB is being reactive, this can only be good news.

This Post:
00
229555.34 in reply to 229555.32
Date: 12/7/2012 3:43:38 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
9191
It is still better to finish first than second, better to finish second than third, and better to finish third than fourth. It's not quite so excruciatingly better than before

economically there's no difference now, unless a team progresses past the first round. Do I have to explain it "dramatically"?

This Post:
11
229555.35 in reply to 229555.34
Date: 12/7/2012 9:50:19 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
32293229
It is still better to finish first than second, better to finish second than third, and better to finish third than fourth. It's not quite so excruciatingly better than before

economically there's no difference now, unless a team progresses past the first round. Do I have to explain it "dramatically"?


If you're looking strictly at gate receipts, strictly at each individual game as an isolated event, and putting aside the vagaries of different teams building arenas in different manners, sure, there's no economic difference.

Of course, the postseason doesn't work like that - teams that win advance to play additional games for additional revenue opportunities and in all non-top leagues, the opportunity to promote (plus the opportunity to participate in B3 for top league teams who have not otherwise qualified). Now, if only there was some reason to think that finishing higher in the standings gave you some sort of advantage in the playoffs as opposed to sneaking in as the fourth seed . . . ;)

This Post:
00
229555.36 in reply to 229555.35
Date: 2/25/2013 6:59:46 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
9191
Now, feeling the hit in "reality" makes the 50/50 revenue split in the playoffs seem even more ridiculous than before!
It supports teams which loiter round 4th spot and get expensive hires for the playoffs. They don't have to spend money on the stadia either, cause it's now being payed for by stupid teams which invest money in arena and steady growth.
People automatically link HCA with going deep in the playoffs. That's just simply inaccurate.
Why wasn't the same (faulty) logic applied when comparing 4th and 5th seeds before?! "4th seed has a chance to get extra revenues!" 3rd of 1st, 3rd of 2nd or 3rd, 2/3rds of the other conference winner + 2/3rds of home revenue.
I believe BB should reward teams who finish top in regular season and get worst draft picks, not take away their money to fix a disbalance elsewhere!

This Post:
00
229555.37 in reply to 229555.36
Date: 2/25/2013 10:23:13 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
13691369
You know there is this silly little thing called HCA which makes teams win games against equally skilled opponents? Finishing 4th you have to be BETTER, and not only better, but clear cut better than any opponent to really have a shot at promotion.

Zwei Dinge sind unendlich, die Dummheit und das All...
Advertisement