BuzzerBeater Forums

if you quote me, the thing you know is the reason why there are so many old user, at the top, beside the fact that experience gives also advantages and a slow exchanging division system don't change the structure over night ;)

So if me quote me, do it right and i agree with hrudey don't repeat it every second post.

Indeed i believe that this suggestion might work, even when i reduce it to the mean of the last weekly incomes(maybe with added cup/bbb), and made it a more individual and especially higher salary floor.

Including old income and transfer income/losses imho will lead to chaos.

Of course there are advantages to join before. More time bigger arena. So what you suggest is denying all the time a user has played??

Then I suggest you games that function in cycles and when a cycle is finished all users begin from scratch. That evens the field.

This is also a good solution, but less, as the continuation of this game is one of what makes it fun.

Time is knowledge. They could use that.
Having much more money (due to earlier joining), that makes this game impossible for new users, and hence they are leaving, is not something they should receive.

If the game had been desinged with this feature (as should have), they would have played it just as much, because this is not the reason they are playing it - the advantage of joining earlier.

And that team was a former spanish DIV1 champ. Stopped playing, came back and is on the way to the top again. The difference is skill gained from experience. It is a good example that the ladder can be climbed, but its dissadvantageous for him, and it whould be.

I've already answered that, and you still didn't answered the following:
how come there was not a single team who joined BB later than season-four at the first division of Spain (on season 17, where I checked it).

Last edited by Pini פיני at 4/11/2012 12:40:58 PM

Pini, you are contradicting yourself.

You cannot be BOTH for your salary cap suggestion AND this one. They won´t work both at the same time. Make up your mind.

And please follow this kind of structure in your next 123,404,323 threads in suggestions forum:

"Key word - Topic" in the Topic

Suggestion in the first post.

Your first post is lacking any valuable suggestion and considers of 95% bias and selective data with incoherent conclusions that you risk an instant closing and deleting of the thread.



Last edited by LA-seelenjaeger at 4/11/2012 12:42:57 PM

But shouldn't you at least devote a few words of your lengthy post to describing how or why your suggestion will address the problem, rather than spending that much more time rehashing your complaint?

How will your suggestion change anything? Why would it work? What makes you think that is going to make people stay?

You asked and you will be answered :+>...

When there will not be so much reserves from those earlier seasons, the game will be competitive.
When each team needs to use (almost) all of the reserves, this is what will happen.

A team that will not see a wall that cannot be passed no matter how good he will be, and how much improvement on understanding the game he will achieve, will want to stay in the game longer.

I am just not sure I'm seeing a direct correlation between old financial reserves and an impassable wall that makes it impossible to progress further. Nor am I convinced that there's a wall. I know I took a quick glance at the NBBA and found one team that started in season 7 and another starting in season 10 that are there (and both have negative lifetime transfer balances). There might even be more; I just checked a few teams.

Now, the thing is, teams at the top do have some advantages. Whether it's too little or too much, I'm not going to say at this point since I don't know the top levels of the game as I do in Hattrick. But to be at the top, you've got to get to the top -- and that's where I think your logic might not be precise.

You're talking about an "impassable" wall and about the very top levels of the very largest leagues, and saying that is why the game is losing and/or not gaining new members. But when you signed up, when I signed up, when most of the people you're championing signed up, who are they competing with? People in the exact same position mostly -- other than for micronations, which is an entirely different situation. I competed with other people in USA's V level, and then after a season and a half moved up to IV, where I competed against other managers roughly of the same level (some down from III, a bit more up from V). A few seasons later, and now I'm up in III, competing against a rising level of competition. The fact that some user in the NBBA may have 10M in the bank and be able to afford any player he wants, if such a player exists, is no real impediment to me now, nor will it ever be unless and until I'm in the upper half of a division II table. And the people who are leaving that you're championing aren't all beached on the shores of II, looking up sadly at guys with greater financial resources -- I am fairly confident that a great majority of them are leaving from the bottom two divisions of their various countries.

As to your specific suggestion, I imagine it would kill the high-end transfer market quickly -- certainly for lower tier teams. You wouldn't be able to save up money for a truly special player that might cost several millions, so those players would sell at lower prices and be more likely to go to teams with higher weekly incomes who would have more leeway in discretionary income... want to guess who those would be? It's also unclear if it means you have to spend the money on salary, player purchases, or just at all -- I would hope, for example, that investing money into building up the arena is acceptable. It certainly seems like it would be detrimental for teams who manage to build a successful team at a lower salary point than many other teams, though, and I think it might be too heavy-handed to have it be a blanket solution.

I am just not sure I'm seeing a direct correlation between old financial reserves and an impassable wall that makes it impossible to progress further. Nor am I convinced that there's a wall.

This was explained, you just do not like what it means.
On the first season, all those older teams that pilled up money, will need to use them (which mean more than it is needed...).
By that, they will get weaker the following season, as they will have less money.
By that... a more competitive league...

I still didn't get an explanation to the following - How come there was not a single team who joined BB later than season-four at the first division of France, Italy or Spain (on season 17, when I've checked it).

You're talking about an "impassable" wall and about the very top levels of the very largest leagues, and saying that is why the game is losing and/or not gaining new members. But when you signed up, when I signed up, when most of the people you're championing signed up, who are they competing with? People in the exact same position mostly -- other than for micronations, which is an entirely different situation.

In the end, any user will get into a league that will always have at least one other user that joined the game much earlier than he does.
At that point, and in case that user is not that worse than you are, this will be a wall that cannot be overcome.
Unless cheating one way or the other (exployting holes in the design of the game like the current auction system, etc.).

As to your specific suggestion, I imagine it would kill the high-end transfer market quickly -- certainly for lower tier teams. You wouldn't be able to save up money for a truly special player that might cost several millions, so those players would sell at lower prices and be more likely to go to teams with higher weekly incomes who would have more leeway in discretionary income... want to guess who those would be? It's also unclear if it means you have to spend the money on salary, player purchases, or just at all -- I would hope, for example, that investing money into building up the arena is acceptable. It certainly seems like it would be detrimental for teams who manage to build a successful team at a lower salary point than many other teams, though, and I think it might be too heavy-handed to have it be a blanket solution.

First - you have an income of a full season. That is more than enough.
Second - If the richer teams will buy more high-salary players than they need, the result will be exacltly what planned - they will lose money more rapidly, and hence will create a more competitive game.

A salary-cap is the right way to do it, but this one is not that bad either.
BTW - why does the NBA has a salary-cap and a luxury-tax, and why isn't it fit here?

Last edited by Pini פיני at 4/11/2012 1:41:28 PM

You still didn't give an explanation to the following - I took a quick glance at the NBBA and found one team that started in season 7 and another starting in season 10 that are there (and both have negative lifetime transfer balances). There might even be more; I just checked a few teams.

How come there was not a single team who joined BB later than season-four at the first division of Spain (on season 17, when I've checked it).

1) go an check saison 16.

2) you don't know how many managers started the game before saison 4 in spain. if there were 400 or more managers the upper leagues were full. it's like a pursuit race. the first teams are already on the track and you have to wait and pursuit them.

3) france and italy have a similar history. and if you take small nations where only a couple of managers join each season, than there is a big possibility that they start in the first or second league.

Last edited by Nachtmahr at 4/11/2012 2:12:55 PM

I still didn't get an explanation to the following - How come there was not a single team who joined BB later than season-four at the first division of France, Italy or Spain (on season 17, where I checked it).

Because the people that signed up in season 5 had to compete with people who were there from seasons 3 and 4 (which appear to be the first in Spain). And then those who sign up in season 6 had to compete with all of those, etc. But I'll address this more in a little bit -- see what I bold in the below:

You're talking about an "impassable" wall and about the very top levels of the very largest leagues, and saying that is why the game is losing and/or not gaining new members. But when you signed up, when I signed up, when most of the people you're championing signed up, who are they competing with? People in the exact same position mostly -- other than for micronations, which is an entirely different situation.

In the end, any user will get into a league that will always have at least one other user that joined the game much earlier than he does.
At that point, and in case that user is not that worse than you are, this will be a wall that cannot be overcome.
Unless cheating one way or the other (exployting holes in the design of the game like the current auction system, etc.).

You know, if the problem was just newer teams were at an impossible financial disadvantage, that's something worthwhile. But what you state above shows the flaw in your reasoning - you are saying that it is a big problem that a newer manager, who is not a better manager than an old one, can not pass the old manager. The simple solution to that is not to punish the old manager, but instead for the new manager to become a better manager than the old one. Promotion and relegation should be based on merit, not for trying to make sure everyone gets their turn at the top. And when better managers come into the game, they will surpass those who are there based on longevity -- as it should be.

How come there was not a single team who joined BB later than season-four at the first division of Spain (on season 17, when I've checked it).

1) go an check saison 16.

Where there was a single one? Wow? [I didn't check, but I guess this is close to what I'll see].

2) you don't know how many managers started the game before saison 4 in spain. if there were 400 or more managers the upper leagues were full. it's like a pursuit race. the first teams are already on the track and you have to wait and pursuit them.

Ahh???
Unless on Spain, Italy and France (as well as Germany that I've brought also as an example), there was almost no join ups after season-4, it is just not an explanation.

3) france and italy have a similar history. and if you take small nations where only a couple of managers join each season, than there is a big possibility that they start in the first or second league.

France is one of the largest BB-nation, and Italy is far from being a small one.
Again - relevance?