BuzzerBeater Forums

And once again, removing three point shots option will work "well" for this game just as much.

Basketball rule are basketball rule. I must say that there's still a difference, such as 6th foul out as they do in the NBA unlike 5th foul such in Europe. That's the rule implied in BB and that's it.

It is just going around the bush.
Normal market behavior is normal market behavior.
Paying more for the TV contract in lower division is as ridiculous as defining the same impact of the coach / trainer on two different divisions.

In regard to you suggestion I feel most of your suggestions are not in order to make the game more like real life (Which is not a good idea everytime) - but it's real purpose is to make 1st div teams weaker.

This ridiculous claim was written about Div 1-3 when I was promoted to Div-3, and about Div 1-2 up until now.
What will you all claim when I'll get to the first division and claim the same things?
The fact that this game has competitiveness issues was proven by me by examples multiple times, and the 45K users and going down is an "on-filed" fact due to that.
As the time pass-by, the non-reasonable affect of "when one joined the game" for defining is strength makes this game worse for new-comers, and hence they leave faster.
Hence, the numbers (of users) are drastically decline.

I will say that currently trainer is only in charge of training and not game decisions.

As already stated - do a "dramatic" change and call him coach instead, and update the decisions accordingly.
Again, this is a try-out for going "around the bush".

Letting trainer level effect GS is a good idea even though I think doctor is the better position for that, specially with "Massage" special ability. (Special ability are not related to staff level, maybe that should be re-think)

The fact that it is one dimensional now (only special ability affect exists), does not mean that it is not more logical to have it more complex and real.

Adding a coach to a staff member is a bad suggestion as I see it as games should be determined by teams players, GS, and other elements but most importantly by the user. you should decide your tactic and other elements... not a virtual coach.

Do you define what to do in each offence play? Do you define exactly the substitution strategy (not who is going for whom, but do you define that when X is substituted Y will stay in court? etc.)? No you don't.
Does it reasonable that the offensive-flow will be affected not just by "the coach at the field" (AKA the PG) but also by the one that is on the line? Surely it is.

Last edited by Pini פיני at 8/14/2012 9:46:11 AM

The fact that this game has competitiveness issues was proven by me by examples multiple times, and the 45K users and going down is an "on-filed" fact due to that.

You've proven that you believe the game has competitive issues. But even if we were to accept that as truth (so we don't have to have that argument again), you've demonstrated no link whatsoever to said issues and the decline in users. Just because two things happen doesn't mean that one necessarily causes the other, and in fact, I would wager that the number of people who leave the game over frustration about your "competitive issues" is less than 10% of the people who leave altogether.

It is just going around the bush.
Normal market behavior is normal market behavior.
Paying more for the TV contract in lower division is as ridiculous as defining the same impact of the coach / trainer on two different divisions.

Normal market behavior doesn't stop - we can also have currency changes between ILS and USD - paying for that. we can also have paying for agent fees. We can also have loans. We can also have negotiations about players salary, payment for car / apartment / paying bonus per champ or cup and much more. This is a virtual game, I know you hate it. It has room for improvement but not all improvements are due to making the market more real. BB economic is something BB should and do monitor. each decision might effect the economic system and it must be carefully evaluated.

This ridiculous claim was written about Div 1-3 when I was promoted to Div-3, and about Div 1-2 up until now.
What will you all claim when I'll get to the first division and claim the same things?
The fact that this game has competitiveness issues was proven by me by examples multiple times, and the 45K users and going down is an "on-filed" fact due to that.
As the time pass-by, the non-reasonable affect of "when one joined the game" for defining is strength makes this game worse for new-comers, and hence they leave faster.
Hence, the numbers (of users) are drastically decline.

I really hope you'll do well in this game, nothing personal. I guess you'll continue with the same claims cause that's who you are. but it doesn't make my claim ridiculous as you said. I didn't say you are saying what you say cause you are in a lower div, I just said most of you suggestion are against higher div teams.

In additional I must add that you need to stop telling everyone their claims are ridiculous / stupid / "I am always right" / "This is a fact"
No one likes it - it's not making you smarter and if I without me checking the numbers it only makes you one of the higher ranks users that opened threads and got it closed.

Do you define what to do in each offence play? Do you define exactly the substitution strategy (not who is going for whom, but do you define that when X is substituted Y will stay in court? etc.)? No you don't.
Does it reasonable that the offensive-flow will be affected not just by "the coach at the field" (AKA the PG) but also by the one that is on the line? Surely it is.

That still doesn't convince me to add another staff member or to have someone in charge of coaching. it's just your arguments comparing this game to real life....

As this is not a thread about the competitiveness proven issue, I will not dive into that and repeat the same arguments showing that some BB-nations like France, Germany, Italy and Spain contains close to zero real users who joined later than season-4.
I will also not do that, as it was never answered but just given some not related excuses that does not explain why those 25% of BB-community BB-nations showing this phenomenon.

the usual talking points

As we're not discussing your flawed "research" I don't feel the need to repeat your assertions, even include them in your quote, or to bother to refute them again.

So, again:

The fact that this game has competitiveness issues was proven by me by examples multiple times, and the 45K users and going down is an "on-filed" fact due to that.

Just because two things happen doesn't mean that one caused the other. Even putting aside the issues in the first part of your statement, though, there's a problem. Since you are stating that the user base is going down is "due to" the "issues" you "researched" as a fact, I assume you have some way of demonstrably proving a cause and effect relationship.

Or, more likely, you don't and you'll use this as another opportunity to discuss your pet issue and decline to supply any proof of causation yet again.

You are dragging me into that and out of the topic of this thread with no reason...
But as you wrote and kindly asked, I will explain the connection.

As the times go by, the assets are pilling more and more, and hence it becomes harder and harder for newbies to be competitive in the game.
Hence, the numbers of those who leaves grows. They are leaving faster.

I believe that the rate of joiners did not changed significantly. But I cannot prove that.

And now please return to the topic on this thread.

As the times go by, the assets are pilling more and more, and hence it becomes harder and harder for newbies to be competitive in the game.
Hence, the numbers of those who leaves grows. They are leaving faster.

I believe that the rate of joiners did not changed significantly. But I cannot prove that.

The only true sentence here is the last one. You can't prove that
You can't prove anything as BB didn't allow you access to their data (Ohh I do hope they didn't)

Hence, you can't prove that users are leaving the game faster as they did in the past. Hence, stop saying hence as you are proving something you just can't prove.

You are dragging me into that and out of the topic of this thread with no reason...
But as you wrote and kindly asked, I will explain the connection.

As the times go by, the assets are pilling more and more, and hence it becomes harder and harder for newbies to be competitive in the game.
Hence, the numbers of those who leaves grows. They are leaving faster.

I believe that the rate of joiners did not changed significantly. But I cannot prove that.

And now please return to the topic on this thread.

Thank you for that. I just wanted to be sure that you were inferring a correlation because you felt it to be so and not because you had proof of it, because I strongly suspect that whatever the issues with pre-existing teams may exist, those are a very mild factor in the loss of teams. I think I've mentioned a much more compelling reason (in my opinion) elsewhere, but I don't remember where and won't pollute the thread bringing it up here.

On the topic, though, yes, it's realistic that the Lakers won't perform as well with a high school coach. It's also realistic that the Lakers make so much in endorsement and arena revenue that they can afford to pay a coach significantly more than any other level of basketball and still remain ridiculously profitable. It is entirely realistic that a team in what would be the equivalent of III in the real world would never be able to keep a player who the Lakers might someday want - they'll go to the NBA or a major European league and receive salaries, while the III team will just carry on. There's no hope for any team that is not in the NBA to ever become part of the NBA.

But even more than the fundamental impropriety of punishing teams simply for being in a higher division, which I don't view as productive, there's a much bigger problem with this suggestion. Let's say you had to have roughly $100k in staff to be competitive in a I.1 league in this scheme (though I imagine that you'd wish it to be higher). While I understand that you'd hope that teams with old money will simply burn through it faster, I propose that what will happen instead is that even more teams will identify tanking the season as an optimal solution, since they'll be gaining an additional $100k/week as compared to competition. That's definitely not the behavior I hope to see encouraged in the game, but unless and until there's a fundamental change that makes tanking for money unpalatable, I don't see how this won't aggravate the situation.

As the times go by, the assets are pilling more and more, and hence it becomes harder and harder for newbies to be competitive in the game.
Hence, the numbers of those who leaves grows. They are leaving faster.

I believe that the rate of joiners did not changed significantly. But I cannot prove that.

The only true sentence here is the last one. You can't prove that
You can't prove anything as BB didn't allow you access to their data (Ohh I do hope they didn't)

Hence, you can't prove that users are leaving the game faster as they did in the past. Hence, stop saying hence as you are proving something you just can't prove.

As current joining rate seems to be around 2500 users per week, I guess that if we do not assume that the rate of users leaving the game had raised we are left with the option that the rate of users joining the game decreased.
It is kind of non-realistic I would say...
You are basically claiming that the joining rate had been higher than 2500 per week, when the game was about 60K users...

If that is what you think is more realistic, then... I guess that now I understand even more the phrase of Galileo Galilei.

Again - you can't prove nothing as you don't see the data. It might be that old users are leaving and new users life time is increasing... who knows...... I don't

And again - As I said in an other useless discussion with you - I am done for today, it's enough for one day...

On the topic, though, yes, it's realistic that the Lakers won't perform as well with a high school coach. It's also realistic that the Lakers make so much in endorsement and arena revenue that they can afford to pay a coach significantly more than any other level of basketball and still remain ridiculously profitable.

There is no connection between the two, and as stated by the NBA, there are more than a few teams in the NBA that does not win money but lose some.
In addition, the first division do get more money from merch. and from TV.
As we see they are not really that poor and lose money, as on those BB-nation they keep still on the first division place.

But even more than the fundamental impropriety of punishing teams simply for being in a higher division, which

Punishing? They (We) get more money for merch and TV, it seems they get enough...
Maybe we need them to pay less tax as well. The Romney's way...
Maybe we should suggest the Lakers to pay for their coach like they paying in fundamental school.
Hey, it just nor fair to punish them...

I don't view as productive, there's a much bigger problem with this suggestion. Let's say you had to have roughly $100k in staff to be competitive in a I.1 league in this scheme (though I imagine that you'd wish it to be higher). While I understand that you'd hope that teams with old money will simply burn through it faster, I propose that what will happen instead is that even more teams will identify tanking the season as an optimal solution, since they'll be gaining an additional $100k/week as compared to competition. That's definitely not the behavior I hope to see encouraged in the game, but unless and until there's a fundamental change that makes tanking for money unpalatable, I don't see how this won't aggravate the situation.

A team that does not invest in winning a game losses much more compared to what they profits from.

And once again I will flow with your point of view to the extreme...
Let's make it zero worth!
Staff will be for free, and JUST for the first division.
As you claimed that the opposite is wrong and will make them compete less, this will surely (as this is the opposite) make them compete more!!!
Somehow it sounds weired to me...