BuzzerBeater Forums

BB Global (English) > S30 changes

S30 changes

Set priority
Show messages by
From: Big Dogs

This Post:
00
266967.8 in reply to 266967.1
Date: 1/23/2015 7:01:04 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
432432
I like what's going to happen with finals most of all. Purposefully prolonging a series to 3 games can be unfair, and just creates more things that have to be coded before the new season starts. I also think it would be best if the tie-breaker game were played on a neutral court. Great start to the new season.

This Post:
00
266967.9 in reply to 266967.8
Date: 1/23/2015 8:29:41 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
7373
I still think that if the manager with home court advantage wins game 1, they are still going to tank game 2 away from their court to make sure that they have maximum enthusiasm advantage going into game 3 at their home court. Even with a neutral court game 3, the same situation will still happen. It wouldn't be as effective as their home court, but it still be better than trying to win the away game in the finals.

This Post:
00
266967.10 in reply to 266967.9
Date: 1/23/2015 9:28:36 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
370370
"So, as of this season, attendance income of the third match is replaced with rewards for both the league winner and the runner up, whether or not there ends up being a tie-breaker game. The amount of the reward should be pretty similar to the average tie-breaker match income, so teams don’t lose out under this new system."


1. Equal rewards to each team? Or pro-rated according to the relative sizes of the two arenas?

2. Or, the attendance for games one and two are increased by 50%, and there is no attendance money for game three??? That fits perfectly the description of "whether or not there ends up being a tie-breaker game" ... and "pretty similar to the average tie-breaker match income."

3. Arenas already usually sell out for the finals. Will the size of the arenas have to be 50% bigger to allow such a big boost? Or, put another way, if one or both of the arenas isn't large enough, will that limit the reward?

Thanks for any clarification you can offer.

From: Yuck

This Post:
00
266967.12 in reply to 266967.11
Date: 1/23/2015 10:20:29 PM
Cassville Yuck
II.3
Overall Posts Rated:
553553
Second Team:
Yuckville Cass
This actually makes a lot of sense. Good post.

This Post:
00
266967.13 in reply to 266967.11
Date: 1/23/2015 10:22:02 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
370370
Games 1 and 2, normal attendance revenue. No attendance revenue for Game 3. Prize money for title winner, smaller prize money for runner-up.

Prize money will have no relation with the arenas of the team, just dependant of the league level (D1, D2, etc...).

Okay, thanks, that makes sense.
Neutral site for the tie-breaker has some appeal, too.

From: Yuck

This Post:
00
266967.14 in reply to 266967.4
Date: 1/23/2015 10:23:58 PM
Cassville Yuck
II.3
Overall Posts Rated:
553553
Second Team:
Yuckville Cass
Love the adjustment to out of position training speed percentages. Brings it in line with two position training if you get more than one spot removed from primary spot. In fact I will be using this feature for the next several weeks due to this change.

Great offseason Big Dog.

Last edited by Yuck at 1/23/2015 10:24:42 PM

From: Jay_m
This Post:
00
266967.16 in reply to 266967.15
Date: 1/24/2015 12:04:21 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
216216
Yes, I also think that the HCA advantage should be kept. If someone wants to risk losing the second game intentionally, it's not such a big deal.

This Post:
00
266967.18 in reply to 266967.15
Date: 1/24/2015 1:31:11 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
370370

Neutral site for the tie-breaker has some appeal, too.

I'm not a fan of that proposition. Others think otherwise.

HCA is powerful, but IRL too. In BB, you fight for that HCA advantages, it's logical to benefit from it.


Okay, I'm convinced. That's reasonable.

Last edited by Mike Franks at 1/24/2015 1:32:30 AM

Advertisement