BuzzerBeater Forums

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

Fix #3/#4 vs #5 imbalance

Set priority
Show messages by
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...
This Post:
00
229555.38 in reply to 229555.36
Date: 2/25/2013 10:47:43 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
32293229
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.


Yeah! I mean, sure, by not spending on their arena they're forgoing a metric buttload of income from their 11 regular season home games, but they'll rake it now by pulling in an extra 1/6 of the #1 seeds income in a playoff game that in most cases they're going to lose, but if they win they get another 1/6 of the #2 or #3's income. How in the world did nobody else but you see the problem in that?

This Post:
00
229555.39 in reply to 229555.37
Date: 2/25/2013 10:55:07 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
126126
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.



I both agree and disagree with this....
I was 3-5th all season so my late season player acquisition push came at selling the guys that got me there too... I almost made my leagues finals, and had a legitimate shot at promotion even without having hca. The HCA is not that big of an advantage here in BB.

I am not complaining about the extra revenue of 50% either since my arena was smaller than the other playoff teams. But in all honesty... I should be in the negative for my revenue right now... I put my eggs in the promote and promotion bonus basket... Had I got the 1/3 instead of half I would still be negative. Instead I am not, and can clear players I don't need for league or cup per say, and now have money to maybe score some better potential trainees than what I had been working with.

I feel the 1-2 seeds that do not promote are being punished in a way by this change.

Advertisement