BuzzerBeater Forums

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.

To even begin to equate anything that happens in this game with the holocaust or slavery qualifies that for the worst post ever and makes any more discussion moot.

could be overreacting, but still fairness is something which includes minorietes and majorities ... We learn that in live and history, and even with such drastic examples to keep it in mind when people talk with fairness just looking on majorities.

I deleted it out of the posting, but please consider the points make in the posting and thing also on the minority and not only the majority ;)

I also could say that the econic change, make the gap bigger betwenn new and old teams, or premier division teams and lower.

becuase the income increased dramatically for first division team, independent from the arena - a thing i also mentioned several times. With the old system we was pretty close to a equilibrium, so i got nearly 200k more each week in comparision to the old econic system.

Edit: Just for you i didn't had compared the changes with it, the point for that was realism.

Last edited by CrazyEye at 12/17/2009 12:47:19 PM

I also could say that the econic change, make the gap bigger betwenn new and old teams, or premier division teams and lower.

becuase the income increased dramatically for first division team, independent from the arena - a thing i also mentioned several times. With the old system we was pretty close to a equilibrium, so i got nearly 200k more each week in comparision to the old econic system.

O_o"

I agree with you

O_o"

You've in the division a team that is selling 22k seats, the gap is bigger than you think (i think :p)

I also could say that the econic change, make the gap bigger betwenn new and old teams, or premier division teams and lower.

becuase the income increased dramatically for first division team, independent from the arena - a thing i also mentioned several times. With the old system we was pretty close to a equilibrium, so i got nearly 200k more each week in comparision to the old econic system.

O_o"

I agree with you

O_o"

You've in the division a team that is selling 22k seats, the gap is bigger than you think (i think :p)

if i show you my weekly income you would cry :( i amaked 6-7 times more money then a average third league club in my country(and also teams with good developed arenas for their stage), the season before i made the same money.

Did you ever read my post?

I did not say it was a big deal for me and there is no need to make some basic sum/multiplying thing in order to show it. I can say it, but I know for some other users this is not that simple and easy like it is for me. And you know what? I'm totally with them because I can image what it would feel like.

(122870.45)

Seems that the idea of reconfiguring seats (taking in consideration the difference in building cost) or allow for a small deconstruction period seems to be a reasonable measure at the end.

The thing is: Will BBs allow it?


Last edited by Zero, the Magi. at 12/17/2009 5:19:06 PM

i hoped combined with hard cap, because when you are forced to change things over night you need security and knowledge that it worked out and not a wild guess building period.