BuzzerBeater Forums

Honestly guys, this is annoying. All day long people were crying that 5th place was sooooo overpowered. Now that is fixed to -SOME- degree, and of course everything is bad.

It´s not that hard to put things in perspective. The "huge losses" you´ve been talking about and the "4th place is the best place EVER to be, there was nothing better in history than now finishing 4th" picture you try to make up is a big bunch of nonsense. And even if - you´re invited to finish 4th. Best place to keep the league, agreed. Oh wait, if I had a choice I´d love to finish 3rd instead of 4th, just because. Maybe 2nd. If I get it, I´d still take the 1st place...

Over the course of a season you lose money by finishing 4th instead of first. MASSIVELY. Easily up to 500k even in a 2nd or 3rd division. Whether you pick at 12 or 15 is really a wash up and not worth taking into equation, nobody tries to get anything below 5th pick anyways. You have HCA overall on 1st and HCA in the first round on 2nd pick. That´s a bonus no getting a 2nd game. 2nd income. For free. All you have to do is protect your HC to get another income game. Really, 3rd and 4th are so much better.

If something changes, someone HAS to give. The current change takes away from the 5th, takes away a little from the 1st/ 2nd teams if they fail to make it to the finals (it pretty much evens out if you make it to the finals series), which only adds to the competivity of a league overall, and all I do hear is "worst change EVER!!!!!!!" this is the end of dayzzz".

So what´s it? Everything who´s not first sucks?

1st is better than 2nd, 2nd better than 3rd, 3rd better than 4th, 4th better than 5th. Nothing wrong with that so far. "And stop the "BUT..." way of discussing. The old system was bad. Rate the new system by itself. Not by taking the "best" out of the old. The old is GONE. The new one has a clear structure. And it is far more balanced than anything before.

Stop losing the overall concept by overacting on a detail.

Last edited by LA-seelenjaeger at 2/25/2013 11:33:39 PM

I have the power to try and change ridiculousness.
If it's nothing or so little, why change it in the first place? It's not about how little you or me think we can get by with. It's about rationality. You can't keep patching up a system with naked eye and hope you reach a balance.

It's a small change for first place. It's a significant change to the fourth/fifth place dynamic.

Let's look at the old system for a second, using the #1 seed overall and the #4 that they will play against. If the number one seed wins the conference and plays three games in the finals, they would have paid two weeks salary, and earned three home game revenues - four times 66% for their home games, plus the 33% from game two of the finals. Meanwhile, if the number four does the exact same thing, they pay two weeks salary and earn two home games worth of revenue - four times 33% plus 66% in the home game two.

In other words, the very best case scenario for the #4 team was to "break even" over the two playoff weeks, and that involves earning two wins on the road plus winning one of the first two games in the finals. Meanwhile, the #1 seed has already guaranteed a profitable playoff run once they win their first game, and can end up with a full extra game's revenue.

Or look at it another way: why should the #1 seed who loses his opener end up with the same financial week as the team who beats him and then loses to the #2-#3 winner? It's absurd, but it's exactly the way the old system worked - both teams get roughly 2/3 of a home game.

It's no wonder many teams were actively avoiding third and fourth places in the system and going as far as setting forfeits to clinch fifth. In the old system, fifth was preferable to finishing third or fourth, and that is simply an unacceptable standard. Adding in the half-salary week for fifth helps somewhat, but it's also important that teams in third or fourth have the opportunity to break even if they earn it by winning on the court. If it means that being in first place now is only a little better than second, third or fourth instead of being overwhelmingly better, so be it.

Again I benefitted greatly from this...

But sounds to me like 5th place's rewards need fixing more than the 1-4 did

It´s better to cure the illness than to fix the symptom. The systematic change is a long-term solution, instead of just adjusting here a little and there a little....

Again I benefitted greatly from this...

But sounds to me like 5th place's rewards need fixing more than the 1-4 did

To quote noted philosopher Descartes, or maybe it was Butthead, "Just because something sucks doesn't mean something else doesn't suck."

The 5th vs. 4th problem was a massive imbalance. The problem with fourth place being structurally doomed to be a losing financial proposition even if they won in the playoffs, while first place was guaranteed profitable if they got out of the first round, that's also a problem that needed addressing. It may be treating a cut above the eye after casting a broken arm, but it's still an issue that needed fixing.

I wasn't saying 4th seed shouldn't profit. There was a nice suggestion to double revenue for play off games.
So 4th get 2/3 while 1st get 4/3 and so on..
But I strongly believe 1st should profit a way more than 4th. 4th can get 6th, 7th draft pick easily and in many leagues it's a very decent pick. 1st will get nothing in the draft.
Why should the 4th seed be entitled to the same revenue as the 1st? This is absurd!

doubling playoff income would rip apart competivity, the strong would profit, while the "weak" are given not much of a shot of catching up. so you´re entitled to your opinion while missing the point about the 4th team not making the same money as the first for various reasons, the most obvious beeing the importance of HCA and the possibility of a 2nd game in the first playoff week, or even 2-3 games in week two. nuff said then?

Last edited by LA-seelenjaeger at 2/26/2013 4:44:24 PM

I wasn't saying 4th seed shouldn't profit. There was a nice suggestion to double revenue for play off games.
So 4th get 2/3 while 1st get 4/3 and so on..
But I strongly believe 1st should profit a way more than 4th. 4th can get 6th, 7th draft pick easily and in many leagues it's a very decent pick. 1st will get nothing in the draft.
Why should the 4th seed be entitled to the same revenue as the 1st? This is absurd!

First should be able to profit way more than fourth assuming they take care of business and win their playoff games. I suppose the difference is that I think the playoffs should be more about determining a champion, and that the financial footing for the playoffs should be fair for all teams, and then let the additional revenue go to those who earn it by winning postseason games. I can only assume that you believe that the postseason is there to give a bonus to teams for finishing in the top spot, and if they should so happen to actually have playoff games to crown a champion that shouldn't get in the way of rewarding the top team.

In the top league of any country, the 1st place team will get more money than the others. This is not good for game balance. In the lower divisions, the top teams promote out anyway; there is nowhere for them to go in Div. 1.

In the top league of any country, the 1st place team will get more money than the others. This is not good for game balance. In the lower divisions, the top teams promote out anyway; there is nowhere for them to go in Div. 1.

A good point! But the top teams in the top division still have to withstand new promoted teams which have tons of cash and which just surfed on a promotion wave from the lowest division.
It seems hardly plausible though to adapt the rules to one league out of hundreds, be it the top one. Maybe there should be a different set up in the top league compared to the rest..
and again, even if it's more likely the 1st seed reaches the final rather than the 4th, one cannot build a system on likelihood.
You want to build your arena if you know you're getting 2/3rds of the revenue. If you know you have to give a half away to a team with an arena half as big and who spent the money on the play-off monster hires instead, you won't bother. and you feel injustice :)