BuzzerBeater Forums

Fair points.

The season someone started in trumps all at the end of the day because as the BB's monitored the economics of the game the so called 'loopholes' (either just there or created) when discovered gave simple cash. With 10,000 users you can spot annomalies in the transfer market that simply aren't there with 50,000+ eager eyes.

Beyond that I have questioned and have never really understood why we have new countries open up with under a dozen users - sure you got to start somewhere but I guess certain parts of the game which were set in stone at the outset are just too far down the line to make u-turns on. Falling short of capping off the larger countries and then re-directing new users to locations to even out the numbers.

What hasn't been mentioned in this thread is if you think club domination is boring and unfair what about countries? Sure you have managers willing and wanting to taste international experience if they can at any level but lets be frank the top X countries will change less frequently than the top club teams. For a game with 90+ countries this just seems a backward part of the game where only 1 of a handful of teams can ever win. (unless of course you are part of an inventive nation who will advocate farming and multi-accounts just to try and compete).

It strikes me that the need to preserve the country set up is preventing any radical change to even out the playing field with small/large countries.

this would be a good solution, and slow down low league starters a bit without hurting they chanches to be a big program

The only problem would be that the dominant teams werent slow down in their time, so this makes the disbalance even bigger inside the little countries, between one who recently starts and has to share the division with a dominating team.

hehe thats also a poitn.

The "monsters" that has been created by this economic unbalance were created also in all the countries at the beginning of BB, but in medium/big countries the inherent competiviness has allowed other teams to catch up.
In small countries these managers have a huge advantage right now compared to new teams. But these new teams with a slower economy will have just the same disadvantage as a new team starting in Spain or Italy compared with a first division team, with the advantage of being already in the first division.
And for sure that some small countries will remain small for very long time, since they don´t have a particular interest on basketball, so this is not a situation that may be solved after certain amount of time.

The situation of the very few teams which have amassed a huge advantage in their countries could be discussed elsewhere, but of course is a very minor point. I don´t support a drastic action against these teams (although a good number of german teams for example have already suffered a drastic change in their long-term economic plans because of the new attendance formula). I have the feeling that most of these users are not native from these small countries, so they could move to bigger leagues or adapt to a new harder economic situation.

For those who think that the economy situation is fair:

Look at me as an example: My team salary is $ 317 310 and the staff salary $ 83 074 -> Totally: $ 400 384, and leading my league (a spanish II) my incomes this week have been Attendance: $ 235 030, Merchandising: $ 53 389, TV: $ 110 203 = $ 398 622. Every week I am losing money or winning 10-15k.
I only have 8 competitive players (with not very high salary each of them) because I can't afford any more, and I need them to be competitive in my league (I had to trow the cup in the initial rounds because with my actual roster I coudn't compete in it and in my league at the same time). If I want to increase my arena, bid for a player or change a member of my staff I must sell 1 or 2 of my players and compete in the bids with many teams which are leading their leagues easily, spending less in salaries and winning much money than me. That makes me loser in the 95% of the bids or increases the price of the players I get. Moreover, if I put players in the TL my fans punish me decreasing my incomes...
I started in season 3 and my transfer balance History is $ 2 934 006, my cash is near to 150k, so in 7 seasons I have lose near to 3 millions while in other small country I could have earn 3 millions in 2 seasons.

Is this fair for you?

Regards

Player Salaries: $ 283 878 Attendance: $ 533 350
Staff Salaries: $ 42 974 Merchandise: $ 113 199
Scouting: $ 10 000 TV Contract: $ 108 086
Total: $ 336 852 Total: $ 754 635
Typical Weekly Net Income: $ 417 783

The best team in CBBA has around 100k salaries more than me.(i am 3rd, but 4-5 teams are like 10k max away) To be able to catch that team i need to spend money on the market. My net income is 151k more than you, but you have 279k more salaries than me. As you can see you have more income than me 45k per week. To be able to have a team close to yours i will need an other 3-4 seasons, but i will never be on a position to spend as much as you because in 3-4 seasons you will have 1.5-2M more than me. By the time that i will buying better players my profit will be even lower.

I think that you have 1 less team to worry about...

At this point, is it possible that a BB sums the different appreciations they have of the issues we've been talking about?

-Economic

-Competitions and incentives for big community/smaller community teams

-Are we really playing a different game because of the structure of BB+external factors (where your team is from)?

-How different and mainly, how does it (negatively) affect both approximations to Buzzerbeater when they face each other? e.g. effort/success, both in the court or also market stuff.

We are talking about it since season 3 or 4 and finally it seems to me that BBs realised that there was something wrong so they decided to introduced different TV revenue and different merchandising but once again it seems to me that the situation didn't change a lot. I don't care about BBB you can see the economic power when you want to buy a great player on the market, that's the point.