BuzzerBeater Forums

Let's define it the right way (as implied on your previous posts);
You don't like the BBs current solution regarding the player salary difference between 4th and 5th place, using the Fan-Survey.
Hence, the above is not a reason for why not implying the suggested addition, but a statement that you don't like the BBs solution regarding the unfairness of player salary payment by 4th place teams in comparison to the 5th place that do not pay it.
Hence (because you like this word), this is irrelevant to this suggestion.

Hence again?
No it's just me saying that I don't think that another addition to the game that helps team that doesn't have a competition game and then make the effect of fan survey bigger to counter it is wrong...

I see I will need to repeat what I wrote just above...
If the documents state that the world is flat, but it does not fit into the way the market/world works... then it IS a BUG. [Galileo Galiei]
The fact that this is what is written does not make it the right thing or the sole true.

I don't know what you think you are proving, but surely it does not contradicts the sentence above that you quoted.

If the documents say the world is round, and the world is round, but a certain user thinks the round should instead be a dodecahedron, is it a bug?

Staff currently receive a salary in the offseason. Neither of us have access to any internal design documents from BB. We do have access to the manual, which I have linked to and quoted, and it does not in any way say that staff will not receive salaries when there are no competitive games. The manual says staff salaries increase weekly, in practice staff salaries receive weekly, and "Pini does not like this" does not make it a bug.

Irrelevant and not answering any of the claims raised.
The fact that this is what is written does not make it the right way.

When every team who this suggestion relates to find that they can save money by selling the staff at this time, the market will have a storm of staff firing, and then a storm of users buying new staff.
This is a fact and this fact will make it a wrong market definition.
As such, it is needed to be fixed and it is a bug.

Let's define it the right way (as implied on your previous posts);
You don't like the BBs current solution regarding the player salary difference between 4th and 5th place, using the Fan-Survey.
Hence, the above is not a reason for why not implying the suggested addition, but a statement that you don't like the BBs solution regarding the unfairness of player salary payment by 4th place teams in comparison to the 5th place that do not pay it.
Hence (because you like this word), this is irrelevant to this suggestion.

Hence again?
No it's just me saying that I don't think that another addition to the game that helps team that doesn't have a competition game and then make the effect of fan survey bigger to counter it is wrong...

Now you contradict yourself...
You are the one who wrote just above ANOTHER, hence there is another which is the same player salary I have stated.

Forget about it man, It's enough for one day...

Irrelevant and not answering any of the claims raised.
The fact that this is what is written does not make it the right way.

When every team who this suggestion relates to find that they can save money by selling the staff at this time, the market will have a storm of staff firing, and then a storm of users buying new staff.
This is a fact and this fact will make it a wrong market definition.
As such, it is needed to be fixed and it is a bug.

That word fact, I don't think it means what you think it means. (Inconceivable!)

First of all, the amount of money to be "saved" is ludicrously small for the teams that would actually have some benefit from this, and would lead to staggering losses for many teams since they must replace the staff in some one to two weeks anyhow, with the signing bonus for the new staff member. If this were something that were exploitable, don't you think in some 20 seasons that it would have, you know, actually happened?

So, because some ridiculously improbable and stupid behavior could cause a "wrong market definition" (whatever that means!), this is a bug? For a bug to exist, a feature either must not work as described or directly cause undesired side effects. This is, at most, a case where Pini feels the game is not properly balanced in a certain area, and now I suppose I should bring up why this solution could be a greater exploit than even your hypothetical mass hysteria.

Let's say you no longer pay salaries for staff in the offseason. Teams sure to finish fifth can, before the final financial update, buy a level 7 trainer with whatever ridiculous salary they choose before the training update of the last week of the season. They could hold said trainer for basically three full training updates and fire them before the economic update starting the new season and pay nothing (if you take the no staff salary literally to include severance) or at most one week's salary for 3 weeks of training. Do you perhaps think that *this* potential exploit would be seized upon almost immediately, while we're still 20 seasons in and waiting for the nickel and dimers to fire their staff for two weeks?

Please stop calling things facts when they're your opinion, please stop willfully ignoring the difference between a "bug" and a "suggestion" and have a wonderful evening.

Irrelevant and not answering any of the claims raised.
The fact that this is what is written does not make it the right way.

When every team who this suggestion relates to find that they can save money by selling the staff at this time, the market will have a storm of staff firing, and then a storm of users buying new staff.
This is a fact and this fact will make it a wrong market definition.
As such, it is needed to be fixed and it is a bug.

That word fact, I don't think it means what you think it means. (Inconceivable!)

First of all, the amount of money to be "saved" is ludicrously small for the teams that would actually have some benefit from this, and would lead to staggering losses for many teams since they must replace the staff in some one to two weeks anyhow, with the signing bonus for the new staff member. If this were something that were exploitable, don't you think in some 20 seasons that it would have, you know, actually happened?

1) Every team replaces its staff once in a (short) while.
They do that for saving few thousands in his contract time.
They will surely will like to save some tens of thousands by that.

2) I guess that the fact that for hundred of years ALL thought that the hearth is flat proves (upon your claim above) that the hearth is flat and not round (as no one exploited that until...)

3) Signing bonus? does not exist.
Firing payment exists, but it also exists in case you just replacing your staff which all does anyhow, once in a (short) while.

Irrelevant and not answering any of the claims raised.
The fact that this is what is written does not make it the right way.

When every team who this suggestion relates to find that they can save money by selling the staff at this time, the market will have a storm of staff firing, and then a storm of users buying new staff.
This is a fact and this fact will make it a wrong market definition.
As such, it is needed to be fixed and it is a bug.

That word fact, I don't think it means what you think it means. (Inconceivable!)

First of all, the amount of money to be "saved" is ludicrously small for the teams that would actually have some benefit from this, and would lead to staggering losses for many teams since they must replace the staff in some one to two weeks anyhow, with the signing bonus for the new staff member. If this were something that were exploitable, don't you think in some 20 seasons that it would have, you know, actually happened?

1) Every team replaces its staff once in a (short) while.
They do that for saving few thousands in his contract time.
They will surely will like to save some tens of thousands by that.

2) I guess that the fact that for hundred of years ALL thought that the hearth is flat proves (upon your claim above) that the hearth is flat and not round (as no one exploited that until...)

3) Signing bonus? does not exist.
Firing payment exists, but it also exists in case you just replacing your staff which all does anyhow, once in a (short) while.

Perhaps for (1) and (3) you are forgetting that to get a replacement staff member, you have to bid on them. And while at a point in a staff member's career replacing them becomes a good decision, that is a factor of what his salary is and what the replacement will cost. If you have a level 5 trainer with any reasonable salary, for example, firing him to save two weeks of salary is foolhardy since it'll cost you upwards of 5 times that salary to acquire a similar replacement.

For (2), you can point to data that proves the world is not flat, which directly contradicts the theory. As I have shown you, the rules in this game state one thing and the game is programmed in a manner that bears that out explicitly and correctly. If I say the world is round, and the data shows the world is round, but you think that a toroid-shaped world would give us more land to farm, your belief doesn't mean that there is a bug with the world or the data.

And again, free salary for staff in the offseason can directly lead to exploits allowing people to train with level 7 trainers, a far more realistic scenario with far more imbalancing effects than your mass staff hiring/firing parties could ever have. You know, if you care about the game and balance and all that, think about it for a second or two.

1) Every team replaces its staff once in a (short) while.
They do that for saving few thousands in his contract time.
They will surely will like to save some tens of thousands by that.

2) I guess that the fact that for hundred of years ALL thought that the hearth is flat proves (upon your claim above) that the hearth is flat and not round (as no one exploited that until...)

3) Signing bonus? does not exist.
Firing payment exists, but it also exists in case you just replacing your staff which all does anyhow, once in a (short) while.

Perhaps for (1) and (3) you are forgetting that to get a replacement staff member, you have to bid on them. And while at a point in a staff member's career replacing them becomes a good decision, that is a factor of what his salary is and what the replacement will cost. If you have a level 5 trainer with any reasonable salary, for example, firing him to save two weeks of salary is foolhardy since it'll cost you upwards of 5 times that salary to acquire a similar replacement.

As already stated at the beginning of this suggestion, this is something they will need to calculate when doing that.
But, due to the fact that this means tens of thousands of profit it will be a (very) big factor of which staff member to choose, as this firing will be profitable, and it will still lead to this firing action.

For (2), you can point to data that proves the world is not flat, which directly contradicts the theory. As I have shown you, the rules in this game state one thing and the game is programmed in a manner that bears that out explicitly and correctly. If I say the world is round, and the data shows the world is round, but you think that a toroid-shaped world would give us more land to farm, your belief doesn't mean that there is a bug with the world or the data.

Again - the game document is not the fact, as the maps at the time of Galileo had not been a fact.
They only had been a fact of what people thought and not that their understanding was right.

And again, free salary for staff in the offseason can directly lead to exploits allowing people to train with level 7 trainers, a far more realistic scenario with far more imbalancing effects than your mass staff hiring/firing parties could ever have. You know, if you care about the game and balance and all that, think about it for a second or two.

I could write a lot about it and prove it is a wrong claim, but instead I will add another limitation that will turn the table - staff member cannot be fired or replaced in less than three weeks (for example).
Good enough for sealing this non-existent hole.

Again - the game document is not the fact, as the maps at the time of Galileo had not been a fact.
They only had been a fact of what people thought and not that their understanding was right.

The key distinction is that the mapmakers did not create the planet. BB developers created, or at least have published, and therefore assert the correctness of the game manual. If, as the creators and controllers of this site and game, they assert something in the manual, and then the implementation of that is as described, it is incorrect to call it a bug.

And I still can't seriously believe you are concerned about some "tens of thousands" of profit - that amount of money is miniscule in the game and certainly not something that one would sack all of his/her staff for if they weren't planning on doing so anyway.



Last edited by GM-hrudey at 8/14/2012 5:07:10 PM