BuzzerBeater Forums

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!!

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!

Dunno what info we are missing, there is something that BBs know and all the others not?
There are 3 voices green in the economy; TV contract (no link to this discussion), merchandising and home game income.
I've never seen merchandising dropped suddenly also because this is not related to the positon of the team in the championship and the home game that I really don't know what write here cause in the playoff we split the incomes. I think you're trying to say to me that if you finish 4th you'll have a benefit in the new season but pls don't kidding me, we have enough experience to know that that's not true, a different of one position above all at the end of the season is irrilevant.
I agree with you about the training is a pity to train 2 players instead of 3 but there are other quite useful training at the end of the season like stamina of FT. If you think that 1 position missing worths 400k, good I can accept your idea, personally 1 position missing doesn't worth more than 50-100k. About the possibility to win the championship again, have a look to the teams that starting from the 4th position have won the tournament, I say a number that for me should be realistic, only 10% of the teams are able to win the away playoff game. Of couse I'm taling about top teams, in a VI division the economic differences are too low, but in usa, nederland, germany and so on we are talking about hundreds k

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

;)

Don't see only under the economic point of view, is simply really bad to see teams that want to lose intentionally.
Is not a drama but it could be done "little bit better" :p

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

If only I had started to do that when you started I won dozen BBB

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

If only I had started to do that when you started I won dozen BBB :D

:D

I still reckon a Japanese team will lift the BBB again before an Italian team... fancy a wager?!