BuzzerBeater Forums

There should definitely be more international tournaments for User-Controlled teams. Maybe there can be 256 team tournaments based on their overall rankings, so the top 256 would be in one tournament, the next 256 in another, and so on.

On the other hand I would not go as far as merging the countries together.

That was just me trying to make a point by being silly. It was separate from my serious idea about having international tournaments.

so the top 256 would be in one tournament, the next 256 in another, and so on.

I think 256 is not enough. There are 14 weeks in BB, which means if single elimination is used and there is one game per week, 16384 teams could be in what is now called the B3, 16384 in the 2nd tournament and 16384 in a 3rd tournament. The remaining teams would not make the cut. Qualification would be based on world ranking and how well you did in last season's tournament.

I understand the BBs do not want much happening in the last week of the season, so one or more weeks could have two game played (like the semi-final and final game).

Other possibilities:

-a qualification game towards the end of the season to get into the 3rd tournament.
-the 2nd tournament has an extra game, so 32768 teams participate in it.

I said 256 simply because I thought it would allow the greatest amount of competitive games in numerous tournaments. Then the winners of all those tourneys could face off in a winners tournament.

I said 256 simply because I thought it would allow the greatest amount of competitive games in numerous tournaments.

Ok, I was not thinking like that. So in your system, would you draw the 256 for each tournament completely at random?

No, it would (only user controlled teams) ranked 1-256, 257-528, 529-768, 769-1024, etc. And they would be seeded in the same manner as the NCAA tourney is where the top team plays the bottom team in the first round, and the #2 plays the second worst and so on.

No, it would (only user controlled teams) ranked 1-256, 257-528, 529-768, 769-1024, etc.

Since your idea is for the winner of each tournament to play in a "winner's tournament", doesn't this give an advantage to the lower ranked teams? For example, ranked team #769 would be the favourite to head into the winner's tournament, but team #256 would have next to zero chance.

Unless you mean each pool would be something like this:

Pool A

#1
#257
#529
etc

Pool B
#2
#258
#530
etc

Back on the topic. The only solution offered so far is that either people in big communities should get their revenue increased dramatically..

I guess JosefKa's solution flew past you as well? ;)

I guess JosefKa's solution flew past you as well? ;)

Even if he did, it doesn't really solve anything as there is nothing to solve without meaningful international competitiions.

-You only play meaningful games in your own country.
-Everyone in your country has the same advantages/disadvantages as you.
(you can debate whether or not it is fair that level 6 trainers cost so much, or that x player on the transfer list costs too much, but your series mates have the same problem)

What's the issue here, again?

I guess JosefKa's solution flew past you as well? ;)

Or not. I find it hardly to be the solution we are looking for here. I get it that it would reduce the income of D1 teams in small countries but on the other hand it has little to no effect on already established teams like Sharman Globetrotters. What is more it would have absolutely no effect D2 and below teams since those revenues are non-existent at the moment. One could argue that implementing this suggesting would not do any harm while solving on of the issues in hand but I would actually disagree with that. For the sake of the argument I am going to use Sharman as an example again. Lets say this team is the product of the imperfect system and by implementing the JosefKa's suggestion we can prevent the growth of a similar monster in lets sat Viet Nam. That is all good and it would most certainly work but is it fear to the Viet Nam team? I would say its not fair since in a community who's goal is growth in numbers and popularity giving equal opportunities is essential for long-term success. And lets face it. Considering how much earlier Superfly started and the daytrading opportunities he had, our friend from Viet Nam has little to no chance of catching up in the next 15seasons. Is making this 15season journey harder for him the biggest issue in BB right now?
One could argue that the example is inadequate and the comparison should be made between the Viet Nam team and lets say a D3 Spanish team. In this case the "catching up" would be done quite faster but then again we are talking about D1 team and D3 team hence my suggestion to cut D1 total revenue. This of course should not be done by simply reducing ticket revenue but rather by changing the way revenue works in general. I like the direction the BB's chose with merchandising by making it a more significant percentage of the total revenue. This could actually work as JosefKa's idea but in a better way. By increasing further the merchandise effect on the revenue based on the quality(salaries) of the players rather then the nationality you have a solution to the small country new D1 team issue. it would also be a welcome change for D2/D3 Spanish teams that face horrific competition and they would be able to take some advantage of their big salaries. Unfortunately non of what I just wrote would ever work. Increasing revenue in any way will cripple the economy. the only way to increase merchandising and keep total revenue constant is b6y cutting further into arena income and I dont see this as ether wanted or possible at the moment considering the top teams just had their arena's reduced.