BuzzerBeater Forums

I think the last game issue is a fair point. From a practical standpoint, it can be a big disadvantage for people who start the season playing away on Saturdays. Since home teams win ~70% of the time, this means a lousy merchandise income on Sunday + a lousy attendance for the home game on Tuesday. I recently played a game against my rival with lots of empty seats, regardless of the rivalry or my 100% home record. It's not the end of the world, but right now the last game has too much of an influence on attendance + merchandise, whereas it should be a more continuous function of your performances.

Imagine what would happen if Minnesota Timberwolves fans used their team's away games as a factor to go to home games :P

DIfferent fans have different priorities but I ahve never ever ever in my entire life heard a fan say 'I'm not goign tonight because they lost their last game'.

100% agree with this. Especially since people get tickets for said game for some amount of time before hand.

Recent win/loss record should count towards attendance, but trending over 3-5 games perhaps instead of just the last game. A great winning streak during the season, or similarly a run of poor play WILL affect attendance.

the drop off is exactly as planned to penalize those top teams from maxing their ticket price.

ticket price, suvery(result) , opponent is the key to attendance

the top teams always set the high price
and expect their high salary players can keep their suvery(result) good
and in this case even the opponent is the bottom of the div

all 3 elements is bad, why should the attendance maintain?

completely unrealistic.

And I like it this way. Have you been following latest NBA labor negotiations? Owners were seeking competitive balance, so small-market teams wouldn't suck so much when compared to LA Lakers and Chicago Bulls. In the end, they couldn't find it. Lakers, Bulls and Boston will remain rich and New Orleans, Minnesota and a handful of others will remain "poor".

BBs don't have to put up with owners-union disputes, so they can create the BB world in such a way we have competitive balance. For this to happen, they have to resort to some unrealistic methods that wouldn't work in real life. But tell me, do you really want to be a Minnesota-like team and never in 100 seasons have a shot at winning anything while watching those Lakers being champions again and again? Tell me honestly if that would keep you in the game only because it's realistic.

Last edited by Koperboy at 11/30/2011 2:04:34 AM

So what do you suggest for attendance instead of depending so highly on the outcome of last game? Power of franchise? That would be unfair to new teams. Attendance based on previous season? Also unfair, it would only make the gap between top and bottom teams in the same league bigger with every season.

Current attendance system is not perfect, but it denies top teams the luxury to lose a game here or there and still get away with it, so they have to give their best more often than they would like. I mean...if you are a top team, your fans kind of expect this of you, right? It seems though OP of this thread would like the system to behave for him like Lakers in NBA; it doesn't matter if they lose or win on the road or even if they have a crappy season; they will always fill the arena for each home game even with highest ticket price in whole league.

The draft is suppose to be an equalizer right? The worst teams get players that are valuable to put them ahead of the teams that just won it all right? But instead our draft you rarely get out what you invest and its impossible to train rookies at the top level without ocmpletely losing . You can't draft Wade or Lebron in this game.

You are correct to a point. In lower leagues 4k allstars are good enough for almost any team and they are plenty. In top teams, 4k MVPs are most of the times too weak for a trainee and they are already rare. But since top teams make a lot of money, it's not that hard to spend a million or two every 3 seasons for a top trainee, isn't it (look at my roster and you will see what I'm talking about)? Then you can train that guy in the cup. If you want to win the cup, using trainee in cup for tough games is out of the question and you have to sacrifice a game or two in the league, but...after 2-3 seasons, it will well be worth it. Or you can just buy a U21 player from any country for 2-3 mil and use it in cup games right away.

So plenty of possibilities. I don't know why are you so pessimistic. This is a long-term game that requires long-term planning and for that, you have to make some sacrifices along the way. But if they pay off, the satisfaction of outsmarting your opponents is even greater.

Last edited by Koperboy at 11/30/2011 2:58:12 AM

Love seeing this stuff

Bloody hell - its only an online basketball manager game

settle the hell down

You forgot that the top teams have to sustain a much bigger payroll and can't train 18 and 19 year olds, while worse teams can do that and invest into arena. After a certain number of seasons, the top team will have to buy great 21 and 22y olds to stay on top that cost much more than 18y olds. And those great 22y olds with good secondaries are not growing on trees; they are quite rare and expensive.

I'm sure a 18y old HoF who was bought for 1M can be sold for 2 - 3M after three seasons of training if he is trained correctly. So a worse team who invested 1M and three seasons of training doesn't have to spend those 3M, while a top team has to in order to stay on top. Also after three seasons, top team's players are 3 yeard older and they are losing their value.

I think everything will fall in place after few more seasons. The only anomaly that really stands out for me is countries with small number of users that can save money for few seasons and then buy out a B3 or something. However, I think this will also correct itself as more and more teams are training multiskill players that will be very expensive to buy, but easy to maintain. I know a team like Venomous Scorpions has enough money to buy such players, but there are also teams who will keep their trainees and won't have to invest as much as VS will have to in order to win B3, home championship or cup.

Note that I use VS only as an example of a small-country team with loads of money, it's nothing "personal".

Last edited by Koperboy at 11/30/2011 5:17:13 AM