BuzzerBeater Forums

Australia - II.3 > Season 21

Season 21

Set priority
Show messages by
This Post:
00
224468.149 in reply to 224468.142
Date: 8/29/2012 3:47:01 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
766766
Its probably not the best time of the year to do the calculation.

IMO it should be the same across leagues for that division.

From: ezlife

This Post:
00
224468.150 in reply to 224468.145
Date: 8/29/2012 4:08:49 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
127127
I'm pretty sure the bobcats earn the same tv money as the heat. Tv guys buy the nba rights to the nba. The nba would then share it equally amongst every team.

anyway, just kidding guys. i've a lot of respect for this league, although i'm a tiny bit disappointed by the tankers' side this season. However it looks like once again, 2.2 blue side is the toughest of all!

From: yodabig

This Post:
00
224468.151 in reply to 224468.150
Date: 8/29/2012 6:07:46 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
14651465
I think that is more opinion than fact ezlife. Last season the blue side in division II.3 was very good from top to bottom.

From: ezlife

This Post:
00
224468.152 in reply to 224468.151
Date: 8/29/2012 6:30:58 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
127127
last season yes, not this one :p

i think 2.3 blue side was the toughest of all last season, 2.2 blue side was 2 seasons ago and is now again

From: Sundae09

This Post:
00
224468.153 in reply to 224468.152
Date: 8/29/2012 7:00:39 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
3333
lol ez :( why do i always end up in the tough side :(

From: ezlife

This Post:
00
224468.154 in reply to 224468.153
Date: 8/29/2012 7:19:30 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
127127
because tough guys fight top dogs! =D

From: Sundae09

This Post:
00
224468.155 in reply to 224468.154
Date: 8/29/2012 7:36:38 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
3333
i had to improve my team so i can compete and im still 0-2 :( there was 1-4 chances ill go red side and went blue :(

This Post:
00
224468.156 in reply to 224468.146
Date: 8/29/2012 8:13:56 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
372372
I'm not a huge fan of comparing BB (or any online game) to its real life counterpart. Although it might be loosely based on real life, aspects that make for an enjoyable game experience are often different from how things work in real life. There's too many things that are different to real life for any meaningful comparisons to be made, or to use the excuse 'that's how it works in real life, so it makes sense here.'

There's plenty of discussion about tanking and whether it's right or wrong. I think everyone knows I'm against it, for a number of reasons I've stated before. I respect those that have a different opinion, but I cannot accept the reasoning that 'NBA teams to it all the time'. It's another one of those real life comparisons that have no place in an online game.

With regards to the TV income, I fail to see the logic behind a system that results in me (and other teams) being $5k worse off this season, simply because a few teams decided to tank. It makes far more sense for the TV income to be a fixed amount each season and to be the same for every team in the division, regardless of the league they are in. Add to this the fact that the salary floor is calculated as a percentage of TV revenue, which again doesn't seem to make any sense. Essentially it means the salary floor is calculated with regards to the average team salaries, meaning teams with low salaries (i.e. tanking teams) will actually contribute to lowering the salary floor for their league. This only benefits tanking teams, as the salary floor is irrelevant for teams that are competing normally.

Thinking about the illogical TV revenue system has got me also thinking about how revenue is calculated in BB as a whole, and just how ridiculous some of it is. It really seems like a number of 'sounds great in theory' situations, that just don't work in the setting of an online game...

1. Rivals - these are randomly assigned each season are have a direct impact on your fan survey, which then impacts your attendance and ultimately on your income. If you get randomly assigned a difficult rival it can mess with your attendance in the following games, which can have a major impact on your overall revenue. A feature that sounds great in theory but is utterly stupid in practice.

2. TV games - almost identical to the point I made about the rivals. These are randomly assigned and have a direct influence over you revenue. Add to this that the timing of the games is also random, leading to the situation where unlucky (or maybe lucky) teams might have them in the last week (or first week) of the season, having a big impact on revenue.

3. Merchandise - there's too many different factors that seem to affect this, plus it can fluctuate quite wildly over the course of the season. Teams shouldn't be getting a financial rewards just for having a National Team player on their squad, nor should they get rewarded just because one of their players is #1 in rebounding in the country. Another 'good in theory' feature but poorly executed in terms of gameplay.

The most logical principle behind an enjoyable gameplay experience should be that everyone has the same opportunity to earn the same money, without it being unnecessarily impacted by totally random things (i.e. rivals, TV games, etc). Things that impact on revenue should be controllable by the user, not randomly assigned by the game engine. We should all be on a relatively even playing field, with our skills as a manager deciding who does better and promotes, etc.

This Post:
00
224468.157 in reply to 224468.156
Date: 8/29/2012 8:27:16 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
14651465
In my first season in the ABBL my first game of the season was an away game that was both a TV and a rivalry game against a team I had little chance of beating. I even threw a CT at him and still lost. You can imagine how stupidly that affected me for most of the season.

It is also illogical to take that "snapshot" of the league at the start of the season. Many people have their rosters in flux in that first work and it just isn't the best way to calculate it. If it was a guy with a pen and paper working it out, I could understand, but surely the computer can manage a more balanced calculation than that based on something like the average salaries of the entire league for the last season.

This Post:
11
224468.158 in reply to 224468.156
Date: 8/29/2012 8:30:02 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
536536
I'm not a huge fan of comparing BB (or any online game) to its real life counterpart. Although it might be loosely based on real life, aspects that make for an enjoyable game experience are often different from how things work in real life. There's too many things that are different to real life for any meaningful comparisons to be made, or to use the excuse 'that's how it works in real life, so it makes sense here.'

There's plenty of discussion about tanking and whether it's right or wrong. I think everyone knows I'm against it, for a number of reasons I've stated before. I respect those that have a different opinion, but I cannot accept the reasoning that 'NBA teams to it all the time'. It's another one of those real life comparisons that have no place in an online game.

With regards to the TV income, I fail to see the logic behind a system that results in me (and other teams) being $5k worse off this season, simply because a few teams decided to tank. It makes far more sense for the TV income to be a fixed amount each season and to be the same for every team in the division, regardless of the league they are in. Add to this the fact that the salary floor is calculated as a percentage of TV revenue, which again doesn't seem to make any sense. Essentially it means the salary floor is calculated with regards to the average team salaries, meaning teams with low salaries (i.e. tanking teams) will actually contribute to lowering the salary floor for their league. This only benefits tanking teams, as the salary floor is irrelevant for teams that are competing normally.

Thinking about the illogical TV revenue system has got me also thinking about how revenue is calculated in BB as a whole, and just how ridiculous some of it is. It really seems like a number of 'sounds great in theory' situations, that just don't work in the setting of an online game...

1. Rivals - these are randomly assigned each season are have a direct impact on your fan survey, which then impacts your attendance and ultimately on your income. If you get randomly assigned a difficult rival it can mess with your attendance in the following games, which can have a major impact on your overall revenue. A feature that sounds great in theory but is utterly stupid in practice.

2. TV games - almost identical to the point I made about the rivals. These are randomly assigned and have a direct influence over you revenue. Add to this that the timing of the games is also random, leading to the situation where unlucky (or maybe lucky) teams might have them in the last week (or first week) of the season, having a big impact on revenue.

3. Merchandise - there's too many different factors that seem to affect this, plus it can fluctuate quite wildly over the course of the season. Teams shouldn't be getting a financial rewards just for having a National Team player on their squad, nor should they get rewarded just because one of their players is #1 in rebounding in the country. Another 'good in theory' feature but poorly executed in terms of gameplay.

The most logical principle behind an enjoyable gameplay experience should be that everyone has the same opportunity to earn the same money, without it being unnecessarily impacted by totally random things (i.e. rivals, TV games, etc). Things that impact on revenue should be controllable by the user, not randomly assigned by the game engine. We should all be on a relatively even playing field, with our skills as a manager deciding who does better and promotes, etc.


It is what it is

From: ezlife

This Post:
00
224468.159 in reply to 224468.156
Date: 8/29/2012 8:37:58 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
127127
The first part totally makes sense. It would be great to have the same TV revenue every season. Unfortunately, BB created the B3. It's stupid competition where the most successful (in their own countries) managers from all over the world play one another. The best managers from the top countries complained that the micro-nations could make money too easily. This is true because micro-nations have bad teams competing in their first division and still enjoy large TV revenues. In order to reward the top countries managers for lining good teams night in and night out, BB had to find a formula to reduce the income in the micro-nations and that's what they came up with. In this situation this sounds about right but as you stated we also feel the consequences. I think that without B3, there would be far less problems.

Then I don't agree with the second part. Rival and TV games are random and yet still somehow balanced. Indeed, the best teams usually are the rivals of 2-3 teams while the "weak teams" usually have one of the best teams as their rival but are not the rival of anyone themselves. With some wise enthusiasm management (and maybe HCA), there is no doubt anybody can pull a win.

Having a NT player is not necessarly an advantage despite the merchandise boost they bring. Sometimes, the can be too expensive for their court value and you'd be better off paying a non-NT player that would be much cheaper and just as efficient. From here it's a good way to push managers to train their own players, which is widely known as one of the best strategies in the game.

Advertisement