BuzzerBeater Forums

The last home game had 73% attendance (which is very low)

With the boycott you would have got 60% of the 73% so approximately 43% of the maximum capacity.

You have not been affected by the fan boycott.

And he will never be affected as he faces non-human teams in both conferences. Amen.

This is a minor detail that had been brought up multiple times when discussing about tanking in the past and that Mr "We Read And Consider All Posts", aka W.R.A.C.A.P., Foto decided to ignore completely when it was mentioned in this very thread.

Now before I get accused of making things up, I will quote myself when I addressed w.r.a.c.a.p. Foto directly:

All of this while not punishing ANY tanking team in divisions where there is at least 1 bot per conference (and they are the majority in BB). Congratulations...you should have listened to Perpete.

Perpete, feel free to amend if you think the sarcasm is excessive

Last edited by Lemonshine at 12/28/2016 11:26:32 AM

Seriously, this game is getting way to complicated for newbies.. there are just way to many rules for this and for that..

Newbies won't be affected by the boycott. They won't have the funds to make a difference by it. Unless they get really lucky and draft and sell a 5+ million dollar time.

Attendance penalties start at $500,00 or more per the Game Manuel. A new team that conserves cash could easily save more than that and potentially face the penalty.

I have to admit that I've lied to you, it was in this post (282669.113)
Time to make it true from now on.

The thing is though that many users complain over different things in the game and if nothing is done there is more complaints. But as a change comes to address something a storm of complaints come because of changes being made.
I'm not sure how they should do to keep everyone happy. Do you even think it's possible?

This is the second time in a few days you've dismissed very reasonable posts as complaints. You really need to understand the difference between a complaint and criticism.

If nothing is done there are complaints. Yes, and that's perfectly alright as the game isn't perfect and can be improved.

But as a change comes to address something a storm of complaints come because of changes being made. Again, this is perfectly alright, especially if, as several clearly intelligent people have done, this comes with an explanation of why the changes are not a good idea.

I'm not sure how they should do to keep everyone happy. Of course this is impossible but no one expects it, and its silly to even say it. Lets puts a stop to constant staff complaints about legitimate criticism from users and instead perhaps see some of those criticisms (especially those with very reasonable questions) addressed.

The thing is though that many users complain over different things in the game and if nothing is done there is more complaints. But as a change comes to address something a storm of complaints come because of changes being made.
I'm not sure how they should do to keep everyone happy. Do you even think it's possible?

I have understood that key success factor related to change management is good communication, maybe that could be tried next time - now game is lost already for this season changes ;)

The thing is though that many users complain over different things in the game and if nothing is done there is more complaints. But as a change comes to address something a storm of complaints come because of changes being made.
I'm not sure how they should do to keep everyone happy. Do you even think it's possible?

Because the game is clearly headed in the wrong direction - has been for like 6 years or so. There have been so many wasted opportunities to fix certain issues and every fricken time the communication failed miserably.

Now the game is becoming rocket science and the old "no spoonfeeding" mantra is obviously the main problem here. Releasing a season news post after the first season game is stupid, because many users plan in advance. Having to explain this to you and your posse is tiring and even more frustrating.

So since you know a thing or 2 about tanking, maybe you can answer about the fact that the rules affect nobody playing with a bot, but can affect people with injuries and training (see my team in Utopia last season for reference, started 0-8 due to injury then went like 8-2 or so, without adding anyone)? I don't expect Perpete to answer since he didn't support this change, but, by god, some individual with (presumably) average intelligence did vote for this so he should be able to explain why all our concerns were not taken into consideration and why this change is better than no change or other changes.

What had been suggested (multiple times) in the past in forums was a system based on 2 criteria:
1) losing streaks (against human teams)
2) PD (against human teams)
If you have bots you have an advantage as it takes longer to get a long enough losing streak, but at some point you will be penalised as you should. With the current change you won't get penalised.



Last edited by GM-Perpete at 12/28/2016 7:13:55 PM

I have to admit that I've lied to you, it was in this post (282669.113)

Whatever, not sure what you're talking about

Time to make it true from now on.

I wish you will read and consider all posts, especially since the userbase shrank a lot, it should be a lot easier. Then maybe you will be able to engage in a discussion and answer the concerns that people voice in forums, instead of moaning, whining and accusing.

Or perhaps, for a change, you might want to add something useful to the discussion by answering some very simple questions that you have been dodging since these changes were announced:
1) Did you consider that the measures against tanking would have no effect in any league with bots? If so why do you think your proposal was fair considering that at the same division level some leagues have 15 or 16 human managers and others have 3? How is this fair for higher divisions where there are no bots and the competition is harder and how is this fair towards nations like Italy or Spain where D4 is the lowest level with bots when most countries have D2 or D3 with bots?
Note that a losing streak with PD requirement against human managers does not have this problem

2) Did you consider what kind of inflationary effect this measure would have? Since the rule requires winning and not just competing well enough and it's based on the cash you have in the bank and not the weekly income, it stands to reason that the best way to avoid this is overpaying for players not to improve the team, but to lower the bank account: park the money in some player, any player: the higher the price and the lower the salary, the better. I suppose this is a welcome side effect, if you think prices even higher than now are good for the game?

3) You still haven't explained what you think someone can buy with 2.25 million or 5 million in the current economic environment. What does that equal in your opinion in terms of number of valuable players (i.e. not 34 or 35 yo) you can get? Your change would still be inferior than the alternative, but at least make some sense, if the thresholds were high enough to allow people to really improve their teams before they face penalties. Like this you just force them to stash away money in players by overpaying or buying old players who are a bad long term investment.

This measure does not hit most tanking teams (the ones playing bots). This measure is inflationary. This measure makes it harder for genuinely bad teams to catch up, or teams hit by injuries, or teams training. This measure was announced 1 week into the new season AFTER the offseason was already over, people had made decisions and games had been played (even more shamefully the details were published 2 weeks into the new season).

I dare you to answer any of the points above. Probably it would be a good thing if you finally contribute something to the discussion. At least Manon would be happy.

Last edited by Lemonshine at 12/28/2016 7:13:25 PM

I wanna add one thing.

After the change to salary floors if I tanked in D3 I would make almost as much money as tanking in D1...D3 has bots in most countries in BB.

Now ask yourself a question and give yourself an answer, thank you.

Last edited by Lemonshine at 12/28/2016 7:25:41 PM