BuzzerBeater Forums

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

Majister Ludi- Sounds reasonable.

I will point out that there are 50000 users, of whom no more than .2% can possibly have a problem with it. Those that do are going to receive a windfall for their displeasure.

Paper pusher- I see what you are saying, I just don't think that A) it's going to cause major changes to income or that .25 of the user population is a large enough number of affected users to warrant a two season advance notice. Sure it sucks for you and me (although I have crunched numbers and see my team losing 40k per home game max because of this and that is not including any future expansion to lower tier seating) and the other 98 , but life is brutish, nasty, and short.

Crazyeye-

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.

bingo.

Last edited by somdetsfinest at 12/17/2009 9:54:59 AM

In Spain, I did not hear a single complaint about this subject. Maybe nobody had more than 500 courtside seats, maybe people are not really worried about this.

I understand the idea of the BBs, and I don´t think this is a big economical problem. Always changes can be better for some people and worse for others, but changes are necessary for the health of the game.

But the argument of realism will always become a problem, because you don´t have to go very far to find other unrealistic parts of the game. For example, why building a courtside seat cost more than the other types? Because, in NBA matches courtside seats look exactly like any other normal seat, they are just closer to the match, so the building price should be the same.

The most realistic situation would be that nobody would pay 3 times more for a "courtside" ticket located in the 10th row. So any team with an excess of these tickets should find out that only a limited number of people (only those who will really be seated courtside) would pay for it.

Maybe you could provide a direct way to transform courtside seats in other seat types. Why should we destroy one seat called "courtside" and build it again at the same place but with another name?. I would be much faster to change the name on the tickets you sell.

Last edited by Emilio at 12/17/2009 10:12:08 AM

Sounds reasonable.

I will point out that there are 50000 users, of whom no more than .2% can possibly have a problem with it. Those that do are going to receive a windfall for their displeasure.

Paper pusher- I see what you are saying, I just don't think that A) it's going to cause major changes to income or B) that .25 of the user population is a large enough number of affected users to warrant a two season advance notice. Sure it sucks for you and me (although I have crunched numbers and see my team losing 40k per home game max because of this and that is not including any future expansion to lower tier seating) and the other 98 , but life is brutish, nasty, and short.

Crazyeye- ld

The main point here is not only the amount of time people have to react. A "small" change doesn't need that much planning. The incredible unfair measure here is the impossibility to do something about it. I think BBs just saw it like a really minor thing that could be simply solved by returning the amount of money invested on arena. What they were unable to see - I hope - is that this was going to screw some people's economic plan. Even if is not "that much" money, in a highly competitive scheme, it does worth it and some people DO efforts to obtain that edge in the competition. That effort is what it is NOT recognized with the way this measure is being applied.

This is not a discussion about 40k more income per week. Is about the time and effort that some people has put in order to obtain those 40k, and the fact they suddenly realize that in an arbitrary and unexpected way this is simply spoiled in such a way that there is no possibility to react to it and come up with a plan B.

I do not think it is such a big change to make a two season advance notice. The Big changes in arena revenue also wasn't such a "big change" to make it a two season advance notice from BBs perspective. But I do think it is change that need a measure not only to compensate a fraction of the value lost (the value is more than just the price of the expansion), but to give players a space to maneuver and rethink the proportion of their recently limited arena to 20k seats.

Last edited by Zero, the Magi. at 12/17/2009 10:21:48 AM

I personally do not like this change, because the money I used to build my courtside seats were before the inflation. Money was much valuable back then and I invested in my arena because I wanted long term progress. The money I used for the arena could have been used to buy much much better players giving me advantage over the other teams. Even if you give me back my construction costs, I've lost value for my money.

Why should I be punished for wanting long term success?

This change is realistic. But is it fair? No.

Edit:

I will be losing around 80k max with this change per week. Being a good team, I am already punished by having a season ticket holders cap. This will pull me down further. Plus I will need to reinvest in lower seatings. This is effed up. Please do not let this push through.

Last edited by JSmoove at 12/17/2009 10:47:30 AM

You are not punished by having a ticket holders cap. You have been rewarded with having the highest possible number of season ticket holders.


Last edited by somdetsfinest at 12/18/2009 12:10:09 AM

Crazyeye-

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.



bingo.

so you agree, that you don't have to kill the first arena modell? Because in the end it wasn't that expensive, it just take long time to build ;)(2-3 players good would cost a huge arena but if you start early, you get more money too and could buy them back)

if you would limit this in a way, which wouldn't affect the existing arena, it would be still fair ;) Don't forget that the calculation, double arena size = double income was totally bullshit, from 20 to 40k size you get with luck 20% more.(and such an arena cost less then 10 Mio) Which is reachable, i saw a manager who nearly get this in two seasons training. and this arena size are wanted from the BB, when they create the system. The improvement also seems to be that low, that many managers don't recognize that arenas over 10k seats make sense, and make fun about people who build over it. Then they see that a four time bigger arena, makes big difference and starts crying. The big arena builder who had the long term plan(you use this for the change which is pretty sick), don't get profit out of their change(i calculated 8 seasons, till you had the money back) and just put the money away in seats who are downgrading several seasons. hey we arranged with it, it wasn't a fine way but it stays playable. With the new change just new managers could reach the top arenas, so we can not arrange with it. And we are still loosing money from the old change, because we haven't our money back, and not working money especiallyy during a inflation is very bad

I will point out that there are 50000 users, of whom no more than .2% can possibly have a problem with it. Those that do are going to receive a windfall for their displeasure.

I belive much more had a problem with it, because it makes nearly no sense anymore to build bleachers in a long term view - short term you could get some solid profits out of it.
But if it like you said, give me a season and let me reinvest the money like a wanted, and then freeze the arena - this would just affect 2% of the managers but i am pretty sure the most of them would hate us because of the advantage we get out of it but to "kill" a minority is fine *great if i remember what such thought brougth us in politics slavery fine, killing all jews fine ...)

Realism is alos a very weak point in this game, especially if it kills fun!

Last edited by CrazyEye at 12/17/2009 12:30:24 PM

I disagree with you. I don't think that, looking at this "problem" with anything other than the narrowest of perspectives, you can say it is a big deal for the game. I just don't agree that less than half of one percent of the total number of users constitutes a viable lobby. I also don't believe that it will present a financial burden for you. You have 700 courtside seats, which you sell at $138. Of your last ten home games, the most tickets you have sold for those seats is 694. The average of the last 8 home league games is 663, or $91,580. With 500 seats you would have to charge $183 to make the same amount of money. I believe that you will be able to sell 500 seats at $183. You would only have to sell 457 of them at max price to make the same money.
You can do something about it. On February 1st you can raise your ticket prices. You can build 13 more box seats. You can build a combination of bleachers, lower tier, and box seats, knowing that you will have $400,000 coming to you after the all-star break. OR you can complain about how it is an "incredible unfair measure" (hyperbole much?).
The effort is bull. I, too, put in a lot of time and effort to make my arena economically successful and efficient. If you can't make up $27,600 that you will lose from your 200 extra seats, then I have trouble believing that any real effort exists.

I do think your final point is valid- that an extension of the seat deconstruction would help managers who are losing seats. However, we should only be able to reconfigure the number of seats we will be losing, like the suggestion about reclassifying the existing seats instead of removing them. That seems like a very good solution.