BuzzerBeater Forums

Suggestions > Staff payment should not be payed during off-season

Staff payment should not be payed during off-season

Set priority
Show messages by
This Post:
00
223524.28 in reply to 223524.18
Date: 8/14/2012 10:36:41 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
32293229
Again the repetition of the sentence
This is not real life, this is a game
.
And once again I will need to repeat that then let's stop the three pointers, the fouls and the money issue. This is "just a game".


Great. The teams in the NBBA will be there for life. Everyone else will create players and then when they turn 21, if they're any good, they'll leave and you'll get nothing. Sign me up!

This Post:
33
223524.29 in reply to 223524.21
Date: 8/14/2012 10:39:18 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
32293229
First - I'm glad you've opened this suggestion in Suggestions and not in bug, well done.
First - I first opened it in the bug forum (where it is belonged). This is a feature as the "blue screens" are a Microsoft feature...


If the documentation of the game were such that it stated that staff should not be paid in the offseason, but salaries were still being deducted in clear contradiction to the documentation, that would be a bug. When something occurs that is not inconsistent at all with the documentation or feature set of the game, but clashes with "the real world" or "Pini's competitive balance theory" or "how I'd like the game to be", that does not make it a bug.

From: Ehud

This Post:
00
223524.30 in reply to 223524.29
Date: 8/14/2012 10:45:08 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
274274

If the documentation of the game were such that it stated that staff should not be paid in the offseason, but salaries were still being deducted in clear contradiction to the documentation, that would be a bug. When something occurs that is not inconsistent at all with the documentation or feature set of the game, but clashes with "the real world" or "Pini's competitive balance theory" or "how I'd like the game to be", that does not make it a bug.


Like!

"Did you miss me??? - "With every bullet so far..." Al Bundy
This Post:
00
223524.31 in reply to 223524.28
Date: 8/14/2012 10:52:21 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
105105
Again the repetition of the sentence
This is not real life, this is a game
.
And once again I will need to repeat that then let's stop the three pointers, the fouls and the money issue. This is "just a game".


Great. The teams in the NBBA will be there for life. Everyone else will create players and then when they turn 21, if they're any good, they'll leave and you'll get nothing. Sign me up!
How does that answers anything?
There is no reason in Staff payment on current market definition.

Message deleted
This Post:
00
223524.33 in reply to 223524.24
Date: 8/14/2012 10:58:43 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
274274
1) So give your own fix...
2) The fix for that is adjusting the already defined adjustments due to the players salary not being payed.
3) And in case we returning to the fact that it "does not fill like it is being adjust, and it seems that 5th place is better than the 4th", than try to join BB and fix it. They claim it does. [In this case I believe them].


1. If I had any I would have wrote it. Me not liking your suggestion doesn't mean I have a better one/different one.
I think this is an issue but not as impotent as you say it is.

you lost me in 2 3 and 4th.

Any manager that knows that will plan to make benefit of it.
Hence, it will be taken into consideration, and on any case once in about a season is a right time to replace your staff.
Hence, all of those who knows about this, and are in off-season during this time of the "year", will fire their staff and then buy new ones after a week.
Hence - a storm will happen.


All I get from that is that you like to say "Hence". that's the only fact I can take from this... "Hence - a storm will happen" might have been Nostradamus catch phrase

To sum it up, I don't have much to add to this discussion beside the fact that like most discussion with you, it can't reach a positive thing. It's to bad as some of your suggestions are something that worth talking about, but you are not allowing a discussion...

"Did you miss me??? - "With every bullet so far..." Al Bundy
This Post:
00
223524.34 in reply to 223524.31
Date: 8/14/2012 11:02:34 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
32293229
Again the repetition of the sentence
This is not real life, this is a game
.
And once again I will need to repeat that then let's stop the three pointers, the fouls and the money issue. This is "just a game".


Great. The teams in the NBBA will be there for life. Everyone else will create players and then when they turn 21, if they're any good, they'll leave and you'll get nothing. Sign me up!
How does that answers anything?
There is no reason in Staff payment on current market definition.


If you are going to resort to extreme counterexamples when people bring up the legitimate issue that this is, in fact, a game rather than real life, you certainly should not be surprised to see the same extreme examples of the "make it like real life" argument brought up as a counterbalance.

I'd like to invite you to the happy medium, where we realize that realism is a good thing in some scenarios, but as this is primarily a game, one must put the issues of game balance at the top of the hierarchy. When game balance issues do not interfere, of course, more realism is great! Heck, this suggestion by itself isn't even a problem - I don't see any reason it's necessary to not pay staff but I don't see any reason the change is really necessary either. I don't see it as being a problem with balance either way. I just find that if you're using realism as the primary arguing point for a game design change, it's not a winning argument.

This Post:
00
223524.35 in reply to 223524.32
Date: 8/14/2012 11:08:40 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
32293229
First - I'm glad you've opened this suggestion in Suggestions and not in bug, well done.
First - I first opened it in the bug forum (where it is belonged). This is a feature as the "blue screens" are a Microsoft feature...


If the documentation of the game were such that it stated that staff should not be paid in the offseason, but salaries were still being deducted in clear contradiction to the documentation, that would be a bug. When something occurs that is not inconsistent at all with the documentation or feature set of the game, but clashes with "the real world" or "Pini's competitive balance theory" or "how I'd like the game to be", that does not make it a bug.
If the documents state that the world is flat, but it does not fit into the way the market/world works... then it IS a BUG. [Galileo Galiei]


(http://www.buzzerbeater.com/community/rules.aspx?nav=ever...)

There's the documentation. If you can find something there that says that staff salaries should not be paid in the offseason, congratulations, you have demonstrated there is a bug. Of course, I highly doubt you will find any such thing and in fact, there seems to be direct evidence to the contrary:
Every week, each staff member will demand a small increase in salary, so it's in your best interest to keep an eye open for fresh staff.


The emphasis, naturally, is mine. Please note it does not say every week you have a competitive match, every week you have a home game, or any other qualification.

Contrast this to:
Players are only paid in weeks when you have a competitive league game. This means that a team not in the playoffs might not pay salaries during the last two weeks of the season, while some teams will skip one week of salaries. Because the week runs from Sunday to Saturday, all teams begin paying salary again during the offseason week ending with the season opener.


Of course, because it's poorly worded later in the paragraph, if you ignored the reference to players in the beginning it could be argued that because it just references "salaries" later on, it applies to staff.

This Post:
00
223524.36 in reply to 223524.33
Date: 8/14/2012 1:01:34 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
105105
1) So give your own fix...
1. If I had any I would have wrote it. Me not liking your suggestion doesn't mean I have a better one/different one.
I think this is an issue but not as impotent as you say it is.
A market failure is something that is worth fixing. Surely more than another page of statistics...

2) The fix for that is adjusting the already defined adjustments due to the players salary not being payed.
3) And in case we returning to the fact that it "does not fill like it is being adjust, and it seems that 5th place is better than the 4th", than try to join BB and fix it. They claim it does. [In this case I believe them].

you lost me in 2 3 and 4th.
Assuming you did not understood here it once again.
The BBs said that for the unfairness of 5th place VS 4th place (due to PLAYERS salary payment) is handled by the affect of that place on the Fan-Survey of next season.
Hence, the same increase of unfairness you claimed will happen, will be handled by the same means - increasing the affect of the place at which a team finishes at on the Fan-Survey.

Any manager that knows that will plan to make benefit of it.
Hence, it will be taken into consideration, and on any case once in about a season is a right time to replace your staff.
Hence, all of those who knows about this, and are in off-season during this time of the "year", will fire their staff and then buy new ones after a week.
Hence - a storm will happen.

All I get from that is that you like to say "Hence". that's the only fact I can take from this... "Hence - a storm will happen" might have been Nostradamus catch phrase :)
Except phrasing and not relating, there was not much at this answer of yours.
When something is worth a while, and it is the case here of firing during this off-season for those teams, then it will be exploited. This by definition will create a much higher seller at that time and buyer at the start of a season. AKA - a storm of selling and buying with no reason except this bug.

This Post:
00
223524.37 in reply to 223524.34
Date: 8/14/2012 1:07:07 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
105105
Again the repetition of the sentence
This is not real life, this is a game
.
And once again I will need to repeat that then let's stop the three pointers, the fouls and the money issue. This is "just a game".


Great. The teams in the NBBA will be there for life. Everyone else will create players and then when they turn 21, if they're any good, they'll leave and you'll get nothing. Sign me up!
How does that answers anything?
There is no reason in Staff payment on current market definition.


If you are going to resort to extreme counterexamples when people bring up the legitimate issue that this is, in fact, a game rather than real life, you certainly should not be surprised to see the same extreme examples of the "make it like real life" argument brought up as a counterbalance.

I'd like to invite you to the happy medium, where we realize that realism is a good thing in some scenarios, but as this is primarily a game, one must put the issues of game balance at the top of the hierarchy. When game balance issues do not interfere, of course, more realism is great! Heck, this suggestion by itself isn't even a problem - I don't see any reason it's necessary to not pay staff but I don't see any reason the change is really necessary either. I don't see it as being a problem with balance either way. I just find that if you're using realism as the primary arguing point for a game design change, it's not a winning argument.

The thing is the same as the difference between an argument that has something behind it in comparison of just using irrelevant phrase.
Repeating the phrase "this is not real-life" does not explain why it is not proper to a game.
It is also not year 1900 (another phrase that has the same sense of relevancy), and still it is proper to the game and the right thing to do.

Last edited by Pini פיני at 8/14/2012 1:07:51 PM

This Post:
00
223524.38 in reply to 223524.36
Date: 8/14/2012 1:10:33 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
274274
Assuming you did not understood here it once again.
The BBs said that for the unfairness of 5th place VS 4th place (due to PLAYERS salary payment) is handled by the affect of that place on the Fan-Survey of next season.
Hence, the same increase of unfairness you claimed will happen, will be handled by the same means - increasing the affect of the place at which a team finishes at on the Fan-Survey.


I don't feel that issuing such a change should be dealt by increasing the effect in fan survey of next season.

"Did you miss me??? - "With every bullet so far..." Al Bundy
Advertisement