BuzzerBeater Forums

Of the roughly 100 or so (according to your first post) people that this issue affects, I have seen only a few who are so upset about it.

I could also say that I have only seen one person out of the 100 who fully supports it, too.

Ok, sure, I am with you it is not a big deal and that my original post was an overreaction. I'm still trying to figure out why it is such a hurry to implement this, when it has been confirmed that the only rationale is to make the game more realistic?

I don't know the answer to that, but it might be so that the new minigames which you are not in favor of (but which I think will be okay) can be introduced at the all-star break. Or maybe they are trying to get it done now because there are 1000 teams on the verge of being able to increase their arenas and if they wait for a season or two, the headache will be 10 times what it is now.

when it has been confirmed that the only rationale is to make the game more realistic?

If realism is the main issue, it seems that a fair (enough) compromise would be to raise the upper limit for what you can charge for "courtside" seats. This way the economic impact can remain relatively unchanged while the unrealistic image of 2,000 courtside seats is removed.

I agree with this. In this, the 11th season of the Buzzerbeater universe, ticket prices have never risen. I wish I could get a ticket to a Warriors game for what it cost in 1998!

Whether you implement it as a soft or a hard cap is irrelevant, since it will likely be calibrated to work the same way. Whether you have a hard cap at 500, or a soft cap in which lowering the price to 0 will get you to ~500 is irrelevant.

As a matter of fact, I like the hard cap better, because it has a solid explanation behind it. The problem is that fan behavior and ticket prices are not calibrated to accommodate for this cap: 500 courtside spectators can be attracted with close to maximum ticket prices, which I think is a problem (for comparison, for 50 luxury box spectators you have to lower the prices to what, half?).

So whichever way you go, something will have to get recalibrated in addition to the cap.

i think the problem that the wole attendance system wasn't fit to get 20000 visitors, it was fit to let in 90-120k, through the raise of prices during the reduction the total amount without cap could be even higher^^ The first approach of letting the arena but reducing the total visitors would be still the best in my eyes, you had individual arenas, the necessary of building big was reduced.

The proble with caps, is in my eyes why not just call the categories "seats" delete the other three, because in the end we already end up in a standard arena.

i know at elast then who against it, and let me do the lobbysm. And the fully supporting guys you are number 2.

honestly i don't like much change at least when it was unnecessary like you said,maybe it is a bit more realsism but this game will stay arcade independent for the quesition about the arena. Player development is incredible fast(would you reduce this in term of realism, i hope not?), we don't pay taxes and have to fight with bancrupt sponsors, other sprong sports team in the area etc.

Especially the arena is running nowadays, in a arcade function normally if you upgrade a arena, you had to build a totally new one so if you don't change this is will be unrealistik indepent from the contribution.

It's definitely a fair point that announcing this while arena sizes cannot be changed anymore is a problem. One of our near-future plans was to allow you to reduce the size of the arena from construction but to give less than a 100% refund for seats (i.e., you'd get the cost of materials back but not the cost of labor).

This makes totally sense, but at least for new changes you should give the victim are chanche to react, their are already punished. Maybe you could let redesign the users their distribution, with your caps and the upper limit of the investet money in the old one - this would even be more realstic, when you move to a new arena this was a fast solution but maybe a working one ... To get further to step too, because if you make it with a time period, you had to wait some season before the last deconstrution of your last changed are finished.

About 1)
it's equal the effect is pretty the same in the end, the soft cap is maybe a bit more sympathic. But with cap and maximum distirbution, why we need different areas still, we go further to abstract "seats". But i would say hard, because you will give a good guideline with it.

3.) I think this would be too confusing, if you sell bleachers as vip lounge because you could label them so, and if it just go down - so you got a VIP place but you put 5 people in who pay the cheapest amount. Also this looks even more like we are going to the "standard" arena.

It's something we would have done at the same time as the other attendance formula changes if we had realized it would be a problem.

For me it always was a logical reaction to it, when this was proposed ... I said it also, and you had the data to calculate if i am right ;)(and i was not the only one) And those calculation ain't that hard, you know the number of maximum fans but get surprised how big the arenas becomes even in the first step(and the prices for the cheaop categories was still high), so why not running some simulations before not let them do from users.

I'm not sure what you mean. Maybe you meant you know 10 (then?) who are against it. I have 1000 courtside seats, why would I fully support it? The difference is that I can understand the rationale behind the move and can see how, if the BBs see it as a problem, they want to stop while there are 100 arenas with more than 500 courtside seats and not 1000.
I also see the bigger picture which is that the revenue streams must not be allowed to grow without limits or there would be teams with payrolls of 2 million dollars playing in the Silverdome (80000 seat arena in Detroit) and new teams would never have a chance to compete. Capping the arena makes a lot of sense for the long run of Buzzerbeater, so that eventually there will be an equilibrium, where top teams will be on roughly equal footing financially.

So you complain because you are seeing only short term and worried only about your own interests while the BBs are acting long term and with the interests of the entire community in mind.

I'm not sure what you mean. Maybe you meant you know 10 (then?) who are against it. I have 1000 courtside seats, why would I fully support it? The difference is that I can understand the rationale behind the move and can see how, if the BBs see it as a problem, they want to stop while there are 100 arenas with more than 500 courtside seats and not 1000.
I also see the bigger picture which is that the revenue streams must not be allowed to grow without limits or there would be teams with payrolls of 2 million dollars playing in the Silverdome (80000 seat arena in Detroit) and new teams would never have a chance to compete. Capping the arena makes a lot of sense for the long run of Buzzerbeater, so that eventually there will be an equilibrium, where top teams will be on roughly equal footing financially.

So you complain because you are seeing only short term and worried only about your own interests while the BBs are acting long term and with the interests of the entire community in mind.

Yes, that was achieve with last season changes.

This new change is not for bb economy's sake, is just to enable some further development of minigames. And yes, some of us are OK with that. The main thing here is that nobody knew this was coming and while for some people this does not seems to be a problem for other it is. And I think the main cause of the problem is the inability to react to it, If BBs allow deconstruction or let rearrange the stadium (with cap on investment like Crazyeye suggested) to these small amount of users (100?) then nobody will get angry and since these are so few is understandable to let them work in that way since they are the only ones affected. It is a fully specific public policy to repair the effect of other fully specific public policy.

What do you think about it?

I don't know the answer to that, but it might be so that the new minigames which you are not in favor of (but which I think will be okay) can be introduced at the all-star break.

That's not the reason - BB-Charles already said that other things are a priority at the moment.

Or maybe they are trying to get it done now because there are 1000 teams on the verge of being able to increase their arenas and if they wait for a season or two, the headache will be 10 times what it is now.

That was more the rationale offered, but as I said before, if you tell people 2 seasons in advance that a change is coming, then they have no reason to complain when the bulldozers come. So if you give advance notice, the headache should actually be considerably less (I know people would still complain that they didn't know, but if you post it in big read letters on the arena page, and in other tactical places on the site, then I have no sympathy for them).

We always have a cap in it, in the past days it was just a lot higher(no unlimited visitors), today we already are capped too ;)

The difference is that I can understand the rationale behind the move and can see how, if the BBs see it as a problem, they want to stop while there are 100 arenas with more than 500 courtside seats and not 1000.

Then you should change it immediately, or after the old system is even running - today we try to arrange us with the old change and get punished for those arrangements again? Because they want to change a total obvious scenario, which had to be well known when they implement it.

I also see the bigger picture which is that the revenue streams must not be allowed to grow without limits or there would be teams with payrolls of 2 million dollars playing in the Silverdome (80000 seat arena in Detroit) and new teams would never have a chance to compete

in germany the succesfull upcoming teams, startet early with investing in their arena so it is a winning move from the beginning. But you are right it will take longer.

So you complain because you are seeing only short term and worried only about your own interests while the BBs are acting long term and with the interests of the entire community in mind.

I am compalining, because i see things long term and all long term plans was shototed down and now i even got a long term disadvantage in getting less visitor income for ever ... So old team won't have a chanche to compete with team who could take the new arena system in their consideration, and could become the silverdom cash cow(even when it is smaller, but the difference in income could be the same).

The funny different is here that, you could get a huge advantage with small investment(with the old system you had to pay 5 millions for 10-20% more income), and even new team get a change to reach that level.


Last edited by CrazyEye at 12/17/2009 8:33:00 AM