BuzzerBeater Forums

I read all the italian discussion of the new BB changes for the season 6 http://www.buzzerbeater.org/BBWeb/Forum/read.aspx?thread=..., I noted something on microsoft word but then my computer was turned off and I lost everything ....

patience

however:

I am in a small Italian serie, then I don't feel totally involved in the changes

I believe micio82, and my opinion is that he isn’t wrong to say that we need to increase the palace

Now the 40%, in the major leagues, of the money got from the palace will be divided between the players, and the only way to get back that money will be the same palace

if we didn’t have the desire and the time to increase the palace before the changes, because after 10 victories and 1 defeat the public decreased, now the air is changed.

we don’t know if these changes will last several seasons, but at least in these 2 months and a half viewers will be more regular, and if one must already give 40% of the revenues I don't know where it should go to resume this money ...

we take the example of a 14k places palace from one of 8k:

before the changes having 6500 spectators who have paid $ 50 was equal to have 5000 that have paid $ 65

that coach with the big palace had spent a lot of money but basically had no substantial advantages. and this was the thought of all.

but now that the turnout will be more realistic the guy with the 14k palace will have 8, 9, 10, 11k spectators, and may also decide on his pleasure the prices

while that with only 8k posts will be penalised, and if he too will increase prices to recover the money, he will danger of having one month with 8 games with few supporters and lose a lot of dollars.

because we haven’t taken account of this: if we increase prices too much and people don’t come to see our matches will have to pass a month, almost half championship, to lower prices.

then I begin to take precautions, perhaps increasing a thousand seats capacity of the palace with the money arrived from the draft, quite promising, and maybe with some player who will have to leave.

the second thing:

the BB have to control the users who register in country where there are only ten teams.
Is not possible that those coaches earn the same money a player of Italian serie A.

it is as the Italian way of not paying taxes: some Italian vips results inhabitants of Barbados or Belize, and so the don’t pay Italian taxes.

for me is right a salary cap series by series, which increases or decreases based on team’s victories or other things.

last thing: I agree with those users who say you change BB to make it more balanced (or rather, less unbalanced), because people who register don’t want to start with a team in the shit up to neck, in most cases sentenced to downgrade, with only 1 good player.

if a guy register to BB and see that his team has a record of 1-10 leaves everything without even take a turn at the site.

if not how do we explain the total lack of new subscriptions to BB?

we are 26k.

indeed, 2 seasons ago we were a few more.

best regards, sorry for the Italian english

well don't forget to a falling stamina on HT and the point that you have to increase stamina-share there (another "great" implementation which holds down continusely an training of a new teams which have to play a pressing)

I know what you mean about holding water, but I wanted to say that the technical skills aren't falling in real so early, player doesn't lose his brain in 32y, maybe only speed of reactions or physical abilities.. however I wanted to say that it is not that simple as losing a skills if you are older - it depends on the kind of skills and in fact boosting of this player by XP, while the levels of XP have NOT a linear affect (in real)

And likewise in HT you lose skills differentially with age: some skills are easier to drop than others. Also, despite the fact that his skills have started to drop, a 32-year-old can still be a great player in HT. 'Not losing his brain' is also exactly reflected by accumulated experience which is not dropping.

I understand where you're coming from, but I think the overall structure is a pretty good approximation.

Oh, and I thought continuous stamina training was great -- now I don't have to bother about changing my training to accommodate for stamina.

And likewise in HT you lose skills differentially with age: some skills are easier to drop than others. Also, despite the fact that his skills have started to drop, a 32-year-old can still be a great player in HT. 'Not losing his brain' is also exactly reflected by accumulated experience which is not dropping.

I knew it!! My coach IS losing his mind: he is steadlily losing experience... :)

And likewise in HT you lose skills differentially with age: some skills are easier to drop than others. Also, despite the fact that his skills have started to drop, a 32-year-old can still be a great player in HT. 'Not losing his brain' is also exactly reflected by accumulated experience which is not dropping.

I knew it!! My coach IS losing his mind: he is steadlily losing experience...

That'd be leadership (or coaching skill), not experience. Plus he didn't have any mind to begin with to take a coaching position there

Last edited by GM-kozlodoev at 7/31/2008 10:12:30 AM

Absolutly right in both cases :p But the money was just to good for him to refuse...
But anyway, back to the topic!

Oh, and I thought continuous stamina training was great -- now I don't have to bother about changing my training to accommodate for stamina.

do you think so? Make from teams a farms for NTs with 5 percent share stamina? Another disadvantage, Bleah?:)

No they are not! We need proof!! ;-)

NT injuries cannot be longer than the game in which the injury was suffered.

This is a confirmed fact.

Oh, and I thought continuous stamina training was great -- now I don't have to bother about changing my training to accommodate for stamina.

do you think so? Make from teams a farms for NTs with 5 percent share stamina? Another disadvantage, Bleah?:)

At the point this rule was implemented no NT player has been cheap enough to be owned by a non-farm team in HT for a long time. So this change didn't really make a difference one way or the other.

And conceptually speaking, 'NT farms' will always exist one way or the other, because optimizing team policies for 1 single player and optimizing team policies for the entire squad rarely coincide.

optimizing team policies for 1 single player and optimizing team policies for the entire squad rarely coincide

I'm sure about that after share-stamina implementation, I hope that it will be never like that in here, where is still possible to have an NT player and do something with your team like (for example) in real life, but I heard that HT is more about well-gameplay, which is after this implementation indeed very well

but I would like to stop the OT, this topic shouldn't be about mistakes of one old game

hi charles,

you stated "The problem in effect is that a team earning $13M per season can afford to pay $750k/week in salary, but is incapable of doing so with the talent currently in BuzzerBeater. As training catches up and the game reaches equilibrium, the players union will need less and less of a cut, eventually going away, because the players themselves will be earning that money"

my view to this is this, what your doing right now controlling the inflation is correct. but can it really solve the issue in the future?

but to actually see it happening is kinda hard, because the way i see it is this we have 3 golden years of training that is ages of 17-20 will train faster then from 20-22 would be slower and 23-24 is more slower and 24 onwards lets not hope too much to see results. ( this is how i feel about it, im not a expert in training )

with this, how much talent can we develop in this span of time in 2-3 seasons. only to see those in division 1 teams or even yet better division 1 teams would still be hoarding talents since they have the money and buying power to get superstars and the scraps would just be only for lower division teams.

you can see the trade market you cant see a lot of talent this is one of the reasons why prices can jack up so high especially when you see 4 respectable and 1 strong to even hit close to 2 million. only way i can see this resolve is

1) we have a high increase in user base that can train more players
2) increase the speed of training ( yes its been done before )

because if we have a number of quality players in the market then only then will the market come to normalize a price. ( suppy and demand )

what im suggesting is can we speed up training to a point that it reaches a point and from then on it goes normal to slow. i know its ridiculous and im not really good at explaining this. i flunk at comprehension.

my point can we set that players from atricious till it reaches average or respectable to train more faster, because the more we see this kind of players in the market the prices would be regulated. but from that point on onwards would be normal pace or speed. also this encourages players to try develop more players than just concentrating on his lone star.

in truth, any player even without much talent needs just to work hard to develop some skills fast. im sure just give him playing time and proper training he will develop better than before but to what extent already depends. this isnt about if he is a all star or mvp or 6th man, its like this i play basketball and totally suck at passing or shooting surely every practice ill be ask to do passing or even shoot 100 shots, surely ill be better than what i am before but wont necesarilly mean i can beat those shooters or can be a good assist guy.

because i meant by atricious is he totally suck at this, i have a guard who cant shoot ft that he has a 4% average from ft line. surely if i train him more he will be better, now normally as human beings if before i was hitting 4% with a little training i would probably get 30-40% ft average faster or even in no time but to hit 50-70% average is going to need a lot more work into it.

the truth is, we have already a system with the training but we are still creating more of a gap since one team can only train 4 at a time while results vary differently. im not saying results should be the same but it gives more room to create. im not saying to change it but enhance it.

as i see it, 400k tv revenue plus arena earnings. if this phase of controlling revenue is over ( we dont know till when ) probably it would get better but to what extent we cant actually tell. because users tend to go high at one point and low again and reach a average again.

only time ill see a team with 15-30k starters ( all 5 ) and role players of 10-15 k ( next 5 players ) in teams especially in division 1 is still kinda far.

i might be wrong here but this is how i vi

To make it short: speeding up training would sure make the market full of the top players we see once or twice nowadays. But they wouldn't be top players anymore, and the top players would still leave for enormous amounts of money.
Speeding up the training would only elevate the quality of players, it wouldn't regulate supply and demand. By the way, speeding it up would actually even make the difference between top players and average players even bigger, as it would also accelerate the gap between well trained players and not-so-well trained players. It's inevitable that there are only few top players on market. Unless you set a low cap for every player in the world, which seems a bit dumb.