BuzzerBeater Forums

Probably the biggest change:

In other economic news, the worldwide downturn has reminded both players and owners that BuzzerBeater salaries cannot continue to rise forever. The best players in the game might be getting better, but the best teams aren't taking in any more money, and so player salaries will begin levelling out. Player skills will continue to develop normally, but each offseason the players union will scale salaries to match the total revenue available for them to distribute. Those who have been using salary as a proxy for overall skill should be warned that this relationship will be changing.

The arena revenue should even out in the near term, so this one will have a bigger long term affect. Will change how we measure players (no more salary estimator) and plan for training. If only the salary is changing but not training potential relative to skill set then this will have less effect.

Either way it will effect expenses and budgeting so will be interesting to see that first players union salary adjustment, esp as how the top players salaries change.

Thanks for your reply. I do appreciate your effort to improve the game, but this time I have a hard time liking the changes.
There are too many economical changes too often and it's more and more difficult to plan a long term strategy.

So the aim is not to give upper division teams MORE money, its to keep it about the same as we tried to explicitly say with the words "same as before"

If teams with large arenas "will earn about the same amount from ticket sales as before" (but the money from selling seats) and the "variance in the amount of ticket revenue upper division teams could earn" will reduce and "teams in upper divisions will also find that people are willing to pay more to see their games"... that means that upper division teams will become richer than before compared to lower division teams, doesn't it?
And this comes after the increase of TV contracts and precedes the renegotiation (reduction) of (high) salaries. It seems too much to me.

If teams with large arenas "will earn about the same amount from ticket sales as before" (but the money from selling seats) and the "variance in the amount of ticket revenue upper division teams could earn" will reduce and "teams in upper divisions will also find that people are willing to pay more to see their games"... that means that upper division teams will become richer than before compared to lower division teams, doesn't it?

No, because " teams with large arenas will earn about the same amount from ticket sales as before".

The thing you need to understand is that High Arena Teams (HATs) had been earning a lot of money because of their huge arenas were crowed. Now, those teams will continue to have about the same income as before but for a different reason: less people will come but that people will be willing to pay more money to watch the game. Meaning that teams with smaller arenas will be able to earn about the same as HATs because of increased prices combined with less attendance.(A much more competitive scenario)

This also means, that for an average recently promoted team, the total money he will need to spend in order to catch up other First division team incomes will be less, thus, not creating such a big gap like before where you need a lot of money (and time) in order to start a race where your opponent was always growing faster ;)

Things now will be easier for lower division teams heading to the premium division and also, for teams that were already there but could not qualify as HAT.

Last edited by Zero, the Magi. at 9/8/2009 9:33:12 AM

No, because " teams with large arenas will earn about the same amount from ticket sales as before".

The thing you need to understand is that High Arena Teams (HATs) had been earning a lot of money because of their huge arenas were crowed. Now, those teams will continue to have about the same income as before but for a different reason: less people will come but that people will be willing to pay more money to watch the game. Meaning that teams with smaller arenas will be able to earn about the same as HATs because of increased prices combined with less attendance.(A much more competitive scenario)

off curse, but imagine if i've 20000 empty bleachers, with this siply multiplication 20000*200= 4000000.
I earn the same from my HATs and in my balace page i will have 4 million $
Very nice change!

off curse, but imagine if i've 20000 empty bleachers, with this siply multiplication 20000*200= 4000000.
I earn the same from my HATs and in my balace page i will have 4 million $
Very nice change!

I believe a major change in the rules in such a delicate and crucial part of your planification (like Arena Building for HATs) needs to have a compensation when changes are specially designed to restrict your growth strategy because it was too good.

Plus, there are so few teams that will actually have benefits like the one of your example, taking into account that probably those few teams were the ones being limited by the change and considering that the vast amount of teams benefited with the new rule... I really think is just fair enough to have a compensation.

It could be less or more, but I do not think that this is a wrong or unfair measure at all.

Last edited by Zero, the Magi. at 9/8/2009 10:52:56 AM

Plus, there are so few teams that will actually have benefits like the one of your example, taking into account that probably those few teams were the ones being limited by the change....

sorry, but the HATs owner are the fulcrum of this 3d, isn't?

I don't think that this change works aswell on me, i'm in IV division! but i can wait!

cheers

There are too many economical changes too often and it's more and more difficult to plan a long term strategy.

One thing to keep in mind is that NOT making changes is a change in and of itself, there are lots of variables which are progressing over time... teams are getting larger salary bases, teams are getting larger arenas, more teams in buzzerbeater. A set of rules today and that same set of rules tomorrow will not be the same game. Our changes are meant to try to keep the dynamic buzzerbeater economy headed towards longer term stability.

Without these changes we believe the gap between the upper divisions and lower divisions would increase, and we are clamping the gap to be about where it is now, and making it easier for teams to transition between the gaps.

We understand that it makes it difficult to plan for long term strategy, and this is why we always announce changes like this way ahead of time, to give people time to prepare.

...that means that upper division teams will become richer than before compared to lower division teams, doesn't it?

No, if the mean of x (<x>) stays the same, but the variance of x <x^2> goes down, then the difference between <x>-<y> stays the same. in this case y meaning lower division team income, and x being upper division team income.

Also as previously announced, teams with arenas larger than 20,000 seats will have more trouble selling out, as their fans would much rather watch the game at home than from a nosebleed section.

are these meant that arena with 20k, have it harder to sell out or is it harder to get more then 20k visitors?

because it sounds like arena with 20 gets a handicap, which isn't very good because you can not really test it and you get a big handicap for adapting to the old system(and the big ones will need more then this season to build there arena down, rucker once need 2 month for building 8000 seats).

this made very little sense to me.. but let me try to answer it

there is a soft cap that comes in around 20K people will need to explore the response for themselves.
I don't understand the distinction you are trying to make in your first question. and so i don't understand the solution.

we are giving them this month to fiddle with their prices every game and figure out where they want to be.

edit: there was an error in this post regarding to rules so i have removed it.

Last edited by BB-Forrest at 9/8/2009 3:20:17 PM

this made very little sense to me.. but let me try to answer it

there is a soft cap that comes in around 20K people will need to explore the response for themselves.

thx this answered it, it sound for me that arena size was the key, not attendance only ;)

building down happens immediately I believe, so i don't see why it would take a season to do.

because of that(and building 10k seats nearly takes a season):

It will take approximately as long to sell a group of seats as it did to build them, and they can be sold for the same construction price. You will receive the money for the sale only after the contraction is complete..

So if the arena is decreased immediately, and you just get your money at the end. I like to know if you could downgrade the arena again, before the first downgrade is finished?