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...

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Any developer, designer, system person or a product manager has flows on his work.
The fact that it is written does not mean that this is the way it should be.

Once the staff members could not have been picked by a team but they had been automatically chosen for them, and that what was written in the manuals.
They found it to be wrong, and changed it. [PS - I wasn't here at that time, but this is what I understood have happened]

And that is not a bug, neither was the new feature a bug fix. Developers can and do decide to implement functionality in different ways as their product lifecycle continues. A bug is a logic or syntax error that causes an undesired behavior in the program - not something that a user feels might possibly one day make an allowed user action be slightly more desirable.

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.

Once again a sentence which is weird getting from a user from Div-3...
Tens of thousands of dollars are nothing to your team? Really?...

The difference between my high and low arena income in the recently-concluded third part of the season (after interconference) is just about fifty thousand. My merchandise revenue is roughly 40k per week, on average. My salaries have been more than 200k per week. I am not about to go out firing staff for some tens of thousands and then having to go out and spend more than that replacing them - it's just stupid, especially when we're talking about an amount that is inconsequential compared to other revenue and expenses.