BuzzerBeater Forums

I`d rather see the arena start "decaying" and thus either requiring to pay an upkeep and/or build a new one, once the quality/level reaches a certain low point (like every 25 seasons or so).

This too is something I think would be rather cool, and could get behind.

But hey! Can't have it, because it *doesn't serve an actual purpose* (according to some).

I think you're missing the point. Paying to knock down seats you don't use serves no purpose other than costing you money. Even if the seats can't be filled by lowering prices, you're paying to remove something you paid for, which you'll probably pay to rebuild again later.

It costs you nothing to keep excess seats. I don't see the point in bb's coding a system that isn't an issue. Time and effort for no real purpose would be the negative you asked the community for in your original post.

Well... given I started the thread, no... I'm not missing the point. My point may have been lacking in clarity - but *I get it* as far as *the point there to be had*!
You can argue a differing point of view/opinion to my proposition, and what you're saying is completely valid/viable. Just... if I was merely sticking to valid/viable/efficient, I think I would have quit this game years ago (like... sticking with an all-local team even tho' the market simply makes that an inefficient way to play).

And... "isn't an issue" - it'd largely be a somewhat minor thing, I guess. the BBs had no problem with coding in completely cosmetic changes recently... I doubt something like this that would be completely voluntary to do wouldn't be that much of an issue - but like I said: it's not the first time I've suggested this.

Thanks for your input, and civility.

I`d rather see the arena start "decaying" and thus either requiring to pay an upkeep and/or build a new one, once the quality/level reaches a certain low point (like every 25 seasons or so).

If you have "arena over 15k and are in D4 for 10 seasons, you should pay X for a new paint job on your unused seats". Something like that ?

No. It does not depend if the seats are used or not (actually unused seats should stay in good shape for longer time), every arena gets older and thus needs to be renovated or rebuilt once in a while.

I`d rather see the arena start "decaying" and thus either requiring to pay an upkeep and/or build a new one, once the quality/level reaches a certain low point (like every 25 seasons or so).

This too is something I think would be rather cool, and could get behind.

But hey! Can't have it, because it *doesn't serve an actual purpose* (according to some)

This is a completely different concept to what you described. If the bb's still believe there is too much money in circulation, this would serve a purpose. Simply paying to remove seats that you already paid for that cost nothing to keep was your suggestion, but that doesn't mean a better suggestion can't come from it.

Given how easy it is to negatively impact the already unstable economy, I'll stay with the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" vote for now.

Wait... huh? Dude... I get that you *don't like* my suggestion, but play fair.
So, you're allowed interpret something somewhat offline from my original post, yet when someone else suggests something different, I'm not allowed to say "hey, nice idea"? Talk about cake/eat it.

And this:

Given how easy it is to negatively impact the already unstable economy, I'll stay with the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" vote for now.

Beginning of the sentence, you declare that the economy is unstable... yet by the end of same said sentence - "it's not broken".
I hope that was said, with tongue firmly placed in cheek. If so, pure-straight-ether-cane wit. Kudos.

when someone else suggests something different, I'm not allowed to say "hey, nice idea"?

That's not what I said at all. You said "But hey! Can't have it, because it *doesn't serve an actual purpose* (according to some)", so I merely pointed out that his suggestion was different to yours.

Beginning of the sentence, you declare that the economy is unstable... yet by the end of same said sentence - "it's not broken".

The economy is unstable, but the arena system isn't broken. The problem with making changes that affect finances is that it's hard to predict how far it will go. If the increased salary floor and hoarding tax are slowly working, adding arena costs could see the solution become a different problem.

Last edited by Perriwinkle Blue at 9/26/2016 9:51:23 PM

- As I said, "too". Meaning, 'additionally'. I think you're getting a wee bit pedantic now...

- "unstable"/"not broken"... based on information you don't have. Alright.

- "adding arena costs"... err... huh? It doesn't add a single cent to "arena costs" - it's completely voluntary, and (as you've pointed out) not really necessary for a manager.



Hmmmm... I think you've made up your mind on what this suggestion is, regardless of what it actually is. Interesting that two thirds of the vote think it'd be an interesting idea.

Look dude, no beef with you, and this is beginning to get a bit petty - on both our sides. Have a good one.

Last edited by malice at 9/27/2016 6:03:15 PM

- As I said, "too". Meaning, 'additionally'. I think you're getting a wee bit pedantic now...

Mate, I never said anything about you not being able to agree with someone else's suggestion. If I am coming across as pedantic its because you keep misinterpreting what I am saying.

- "adding arena costs"... err... huh? It doesn't add a single cent to "arena costs" - it's completely voluntary, and (as you've pointed out) not really necessary for a manager.

I wasn't referring to your suggestion. I was talking about the suggestion that arenas should start decaying and require everyone to "pay for upkeep". Again, just clearing up your misinterpretation.

Sheesh dude... I am beginning to suspect that you are trolling. I don't know you from stone - and I gave you the benefit of the doubt earlier. You were civil, but that's eroding, huh? Trolling, is that indeed what you're doing? I guess I should ask some I know within the Aussie community...

Anyway... to play along.

- As I said, "too". Meaning, 'additionally'. I think you're getting a wee bit pedantic now...

Mate, I never said anything about you not being able to agree with someone else's suggestion. If I am coming across as pedantic its because you keep misinterpreting what I am saying.

Erm... I'd suggest it isn't so much "misinterpretation", as much as what you're saying being incredibly misleading. Whether by intent, or not... isn't really relevant.

I agree with someone on a suggestion... you immediately jump in with:

This is a completely different concept to what you described.

Slightly aggressive... but no matter. Still, definitely a response to the negative, and who gives a flier if the suggestions DIFFERENT to what I suggested? So... ?

- "adding arena costs"... err... huh? It doesn't add a single cent to "arena costs" - it's completely voluntary, and (as you've pointed out) not really necessary for a manager.

I wasn't referring to your suggestion. I was talking about the suggestion that arenas should start decaying and require everyone to "pay for upkeep". Again, just clearing up your misinterpretation.

Yet again, there's no *misinterpretation*.

The economy is unstable, but the arena system isn't broken. The problem with making changes that affect finances is that it's hard to predict how far it will go. If the increased salary floor and hoarding tax are slowly working, adding arena costs could see the solution become a different problem.

You respond to something I've said, and apparently the second half of what you're saying isn't in regards to me? So... it's a wild tangent. 'K. Or at best, a tenuous link to someone else, without actually acknowledging you're changing topic midstream. Again... 'k.

Look... as I said: no beef with you, but you seem intent to cause someone. I get it. I think by now we all get it: you don't like the suggestion. Cool beans, I'll cope. Move along?