BuzzerBeater Forums

I don't see any reason to "defend" this news. Try to make a stat of the teams that have won the division starting from the 4th place, then check the salary of a top teams and you can see that there is something wrong under the economic point of view. How many games you've to do to earn 700k in the playoff?

Instead of say this is good, try to say why this is good, when 90% of the the people says that probably something is wrong maybe they can have some reasons to say that.
The worst thing in this new benefit for 5th place teams is that we are ruin the "ethic" of the sport, it's quite strange that 90% of people prefer to arrive in the 5th place instead to play playoff.

Last matter; I appreciate that this new has been announced 1 season in advance, due to the fact that we can't do anything to change it, why next time BBs don't try to "promote" a poll listening what the community would like to chose about a similar decision?

As I've written above, I can't see why 200k are better than a full training week, better fan survey for next season (which will give you more money), and the chance of playing the POs and maybe win the first round.
What was very bad for the game is the previous situation, where the teams that reached the finals got 2M more than 5th and 8th and 1M more than the rest of the teams

Edit:

it's quite strange that 90% of people prefer to arrive in the 5th place instead to play playoff.

I don't think you have asked the whole community, so this statement is a bit risky, and probably far away from reality

Last edited by Foto at 12/22/2010 6:04:48 PM

Because this thread (or nearly every other economy thread) itself already shows too many people do not have sufficient information, or fail to conclude the right things out of their current information, to make a poll succesfull.

Reading this whole thread, I seems the majority did not even read Charles his comment, or if they read it they are still drawing the wrong conclusions. I see many comments about 'BBs trying to fix a 5th place problem', a problem of which we always said, and Charles said again in his comment, never existed and was purely placebo. Furthermore, I'm not sure why managers succes in many aspect to make long term plans, but keep on viewing economy week by week instead of long term. People pay a lot for 18 yo high potential trainees with a good starting skillset, not because they currently are worth that much, but because of their long term future value. Why do some succeed in planning the training long term, but fail to see the economy wider than a timespan of two weeks?

The view of the majority is most probably not the view what's best for the game, especially not when information is limited. Since Yellow Cake mentioned the poll earlier on, I'm wondering what would be the current state of the game if we asked votes for the economies earlier. I'm sure the TV income of Italian teams would be around 50 times higher than the TV incomes of Japanese teams,then. If, of course, we would have decided according to the outcome of such a poll. Would that be the best for the game, or just for the larger communities?

That exists to a lesser extent in this game too. We have TV money and income is capped depending on league level.

I dont think this path will lead the discussion anywhere, this would be too difficult to discuss the weird hybrid system of US and european rules and mechanics we find in this game...

As I've written above, I can't see why 200k are better than a full training week, better fan survey for next season (which will give you more money), and the chance of playing the POs and maybe win the first round.
What was very bad for the game is the previous situation, where the teams that reached the finals got 2M more than 5th and 8th and 1M more than the rest of the teams

But why we have to arrive to discuss IF is better one more training instead of money? It coudn't be better to pay half income in the challenge between the 5th place and zero to the 8th place? I agreed the previous situation was not acceptable but this new one is a big bonus for the 5th place.
About fan survey I prefer to not speak this is very bad done, imho of course ;)

Because this thread (or nearly every other economy thread) itself already shows too many people do not have sufficient information, or fail to conclude the right things out of their current information, to make a poll succesfull.

Reading this whole thread, I seems the majority did not even read Charles his comment, or if they read it they are still drawing the wrong conclusions. I see many comments about 'BBs trying to fix a 5th place problem', a problem of which we always said, and Charles said again in his comment, never existed and was purely placebo. Furthermore, I'm not sure why managers succes in many aspect to make long term plans, but keep on viewing economy week by week instead of long term. People pay a lot for 18 yo high potential trainees with a good starting skillset, not because they currently are worth that much, but because of their long term future value. Why do some succeed in planning the training long term, but fail to see the economy wider than a timespan of two weeks?

The view of the majority is most probably not the view what's best for the game, especially not when information is limited. Since Yellow Cake mentioned the poll earlier on, I'm wondering what would be the current state of the game if we asked votes for the economies earlier. I'm sure the TV income of Italian teams would be around 50 times higher than the TV incomes of Japanese teams,then. If, of course, we would have decided according to the outcome of such a poll. Would that be the best for the game, or just for the larger communities?

Patje you didn't get the point. I'm not saying that till now everything was perfect, I finished in the 5th place one season and I was not happy at all, so as written above something must be done. The problem here is HOW this change has been done and here we are not talking about minor or large community the 5th place is really the best choice for every nation where there is a minimum competition and again the real problem that I see is not economic itself but that you will see teams that will lose the last match with the precise target to get the 5th place. It can be an option of course but is an option that is against the logic and against the sense of "sport".

You are completely correct Ned. This new one is a bonus for the 5th place team. For a whole week or two out of a 14 week season. I don't know why it is you can't see this.

For everyone else that is complaining about this, just make an adjustment, figure it out! I didn't like the initial plan at first but if you think about it, it really doesn't look bad and clearly is better for the long term health of the game. It is what it is fellas, deal with it. If you truly think 5th is the golden spot to be, go finish fifth next season and let us know how that works out. As a manager of one single team, you can not possibly see all of the econimics behind every team. Do you really think the BB's just threw this together without simulating and running tons of data? It's going to work and everyone needs to get over themselves.

Again, the statements you make about the 5th place now suddenly being the best (as with the earlier statements that the 5th place was the worst), are made without sufficient information or with concluding wrong things out of the current information.

If teams decide to lose games in order to finish 5th instead of 3rd or 4th, that's solely because they fail to plan their economy further than two weeks and only look at the short term, instead of planning your cashflows longterm just as basically every other strategy like training. As a manager, I'd be happy to see my surrounding teams make bad choices and give me the 3rd or 4th spot in order to finish 5th. Maybe I'd even be able to win a title once then!

Last edited by BB-Patrick at 12/22/2010 6:33:51 PM

At the end, only a small example.
If the 4th earns 1 training and 200k, the 5th earns "only" 600k, this could be a realistic example for top teams in competitive nations. What I'm trying to say is that a better compromise for those of the 5th place should be lose the training and earn 200k, in that case you can even choice to arrive in 5th position but it seems not so good as arrive in 4th position. When you make me a gift of 600k probably I would prefer to sacrifice 1 spot or 2 spots of training, don't you?

Last edited by ned at 12/22/2010 6:39:04 PM

Well, I've just pointed out my thoughts and I really think that being 4th is not worst than being 5th, so I can't see so a dramatic situation or that this change is so bad in this sense.
In fact, I've seen last seasons how team who were going to be 3rd or 4th, sold part of his rosters before the economic update, to spare money and gave an easy win to 1st and 2nd teams. Now, some of these teams could wait till the match knowing that if they lose, they will still spare a week of salaries.
Could it be a better solution? Well, maybe, but trying to find one with the data we know is very difficult
Anyway, maybe when I see how much the TV contract will decrease, I change my mind and start complaining, xd

Last edited by Foto at 12/22/2010 6:46:08 PM

Come on ned, step trading could almost make up that 400k difference!! Don't tell me you've lost it!!