BuzzerBeater Forums

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...

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...

What we surely can say that an increase bigger than current 2500 users a week in a ~50K user game is non-realistic.
And that leaves us with my claim of an increased rate of users leaving the game.

quote]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...

Of course they receive more merchandise and TV contract money. Merchandise is based on the salary of your teams' players (with some bonuses for homegrown/domestic players, for NT players, and for performance) while the TV contract is based on the total salary level of the league when the season is starting. If you found a V series that had everyone with 500k rosters, they would end up with a higher TV contract than a III with 250k average rosters. They get more money because they spend more money. That's why TV revenues in I in a small country are dwarfed by those in large countries - because it doesn't matter what league level they are in, just how much salary is in that league when the contracts are determined. (On the other hand, the salary floor is affected by league level, which is a good decision in my opinion).

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.

Look at the number of posts in the tanking thread, about people who are up in arms about it. Contrast that with the number of people who are in support of your posts in general. Now, whatever you personally think is a problem, there is a definite sector of the userbase who is vocal that tanking is a problem and many people are convinced that it is simply the only way to get to the top in this game. (You, yourself, made reference to that whenever you were shown a team that didn't reach the top level by virtue of being here since season 4). Now, given that environment, how is a move that will explicitly reward tankers further going to improve the userbase? And all this to solve, what, a problem we can't really even identify as an actual problem?

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...

My point of view is that you don't single out any division for different game mechanics or balancing unless there's a very good reason for it. My point of view is that you should have as many interesting choices as possible. Free staff means uniform staff all over the place, which eliminates the point of having it in the first place. Giving advantages OR disadvantages to teams just because of the prefix of their league level is ridiculous. Try to make the game better for everyone and people will respect that; try to make the game miserable for those at the top and people will simply stop striving to get there.

Of course they receive more merchandise and TV contract money. Merchandise is based on the salary of your teams' players etc....

So??? They get more, and they need to pay more, like in real life.
As they expect to get more due to their players, they need to expect to pay more for those players' coach / trainer etc.

I must say that each time that you see you writing something here it smells fishy.
A user who writes the things you write is not one who plays at the division you are at.

Look at the number of posts in the tanking thread, about people who are up in arms about it. Contrast that with the number of people who are in support of your posts in general. Now, whatever you personally think is a problem, there is a definite sector of the userbase who is vocal that tanking is a problem and many people are convinced that it is simply the only way to get to the top in this game. (You, yourself, made reference to that whenever you were shown a team that didn't reach the top level by virtue of being here since season 4). Now, given that environment, how is a move that will explicitly reward tankers further going to improve the userbase?

How's that rewards tankers? Maybe we need to ask a constant salary per player for all of the teams on any division, regardless of the division and the quality of the team?...

And all this to solve, what, a problem we can't really even identify as an actual problem?

Not a problem???
Why it is OK for higher division's teams to get more money for TV and such but not paying more for the staff they need to posses for those superstars?

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...

My point of view is that you don't single out any division for different game mechanics or balancing unless there's a very good reason for it.

This does not relate to what I've wrote, and does not relate anything, as it affects all divisions, and as I am at the second division, I am one of those who is affected the most (upon your claim).

My point of view is that you should have as many interesting choices as possible. Free staff means uniform staff all over the place, which eliminates the point of having it in the first place. Giving advantages OR disadvantages to teams just because of the prefix of their league level is ridiculous. Try to make the game better for everyone and people will respect that; try to make the game miserable for those at the top and people will simply stop striving to get there.

They will need to have a better staff for a better roster, not due to their division, because this what a better roster demands (as in real teams).
Or should we also lower the salary of their players, because it is not fair for them... to pay more "just due to the prefix of their division"...

Last edited by Pini פיני at 8/14/2012 4:40:22 PM