BuzzerBeater Forums

Semantics. How is getting more money different from others getting less?

In the long run, not much. But in the short run it's a huge difference. You have gotten accustomed to a regime in which you make X amount of money. If you make X-300k you might be in financial trouble even in meeting your running costs. Since your running costs stay the same, the fact that other people are getting more money only impacts you on the TL.

The impact on the TL is bigger than you suggest, imo. The ability to draw more from the TL and training than other managers is one of the main differences between contenders and also-rans, or should be. With more revenue not only can you get better players than the people chasing you but you can get the top trainees off of the TL, just by outbidding those not at the same pay scale as you. This is the crux of competion and promotion in this game, Better moves, purchases, training regimes, and trainees. These changes tip the scales even farther in favor of the teams at the top. Before you had to not only manage well to move up, but manage better than those above you who manage well also. If you were good enough to gain little bits of ground through good TL work over top teams, it is basically washed now because the team above you washes away these subtle gains through an influx of additional cash.

I think these changes are great. They have intervened thoughtfully on all the things that had to be changed to prevent the game from taking a bad turn and being populated with farm teams. I wish they changed the fan survey, but I'll just pretend it's not even there.

I would expect those managers allready at the top to like these changes, such as yourself. I would like them too were I there. The additional benefits for NT managers is something I am sure you prefer. With incentives for 'Stars" and NT players, it will entice more managers to one-position train and train/purchase and maintain NT players. Fantastic change for those who can afford NT players, not so great for the majority of us that are just trying to beat our local rival and put butts in the seats.

I belive that the more you widen a competitive gap between top teams and those under them, the more bots you will see. No chance=no fun to many from the middle and bottom of the ladder.

BB would have been threatened without changes and so I am basically happy to see changes. I am sure many managers would have quit with "suddenly" high wages versus rather low income. We all want many and happy managers in a growing game.

What bothers me is the one-sidedness of the changes.

I feel that managers with long-term strategy are rather punished and managers with short-term strategy are privileged. I am not even saying that long-term strategy is more clever (one might judge so, but it doesn't matter). But they should be treated equally at least.

One problem of short-term strategy (="win now!") was spending in players and wages, wages now exploding. Relief now is adapting income to cost, increasing non-arena income and lower arena income.

One problem of long-term strategy was having not the best players, but investing in in Arena (="win later"). Increasing non-arena income and lowering non-arena income makes these spendings worthless. Refunding of construction cost is a joke, because arena was ment to be a sustainable, profitable action for a long term.

Managers with long-term strategy have sold (or not bought) wage-monsters recently because it was evident that they were a threat to finances. Changes make that an obsolete decision, because income is by changes simply adjusted to spendings.

Training multiskilled players is a nice idea as well. Instead of training 3 more monster skill-ups and reaching the wage cap you can easily train a dozen skills of secondary/tertiary skill in order to have a more versatile - and cheaper - player. Necessity now? Hardly, at least not financially.

Given that the downside of short-term strategy was clearly foreseeable I am really disappointed by the one-sidedness of these changes. And I am not blaming managers but the BB team.

I am hopefully overseeing something, am I?







Last edited by Pallu at 6/2/2009 7:03:26 PM

I am sorry you resent what I said. I didnt mean it maliciously, it is just normal behavior for all of us to favor something that benefits us more than something that doesnt. I did not mean to imply you didnt look at it objectively, I was trying to state that teams in Division I would be more inclined to like these changes than those in IV. Just trying to discuss this, not enter into some kind of pissing match.

In regards to NT players, I was refering to your being a U21 coach, and that any changes that would give incentive to train National caliber players would benefit you as a U21 coach. Whether you care about that or not isnt for me to say, but the fact that it may improve the player pool you can recruit from is my point.

maybe we are more affected, but are they really better for us?

There are some disadvantage of the system, but like charles said it also have good oppurtunites so i would give it a try.

Edit: i hope it works also on small countrys, and in bot filled bottom leagues.


Last edited by CrazyEye at 6/2/2009 8:27:24 PM

Fine. But,

something that benefits us more than something that doesnt.

it doesn't.

This is the argument, and I disagree. The fact that you dont now have a NT player doesnt mean you wont next week, or couldnt. The same is not true of the majority of users.

However, the question you should ask is not how much difference the changes will produce between divisions: in my view, you should ask how quickly can that difference be evened out once you promote?

excellent point. The best team in II should be at least competitive with the bottom half of I. When we start seeing 22-0 II teams go 2-20 consistently when they make it to I, I believe there is a problem. I think some of these changes move the game more in that direction.

he answer, up to now, was "relatively quickly if you play your cards correctly". It is possible that the BB will have to increase the promotion prize if the gap between divisions widens. That's the thing to lobby for if the changes achieve their desired result.

Agreed. However if I began to lobby for alternate changes I would be redirected to another forum. Here we may only discuss. I assume since these changes have allready been decided on that this post is primarily for us to post "I Like", or "I dont like" and why.

1) that promotion must always be a reward (it was getting to the point that a life of victories in Div. II was better long term and short term than a life of mediocrity in Div. I).

It seems these changes will make promotion just temporary down the road. No reward in becoming the worst team by far in any series as far as I see. Not saying you are wrong here, asking for more on this so I can understand better.

2) that there should not be farm teams.

Is this because more 'main' accounts will want to hold onto NT players for the boost instead of shipping them off to farms? Seems minimal remedy at best. Not sure I get this either. (help)

I like the sound of the changes and agree with the majority of posters. I guess the proof will be in the pudding and the current unknowns will naturally be figured out as time goes by.

I just hope that the weekly income I was aiming to achieve via my stadium can also be achieved with the new calculations. The JBBL is getting stronger and I am curious to see the difference that will surely be between our negotiated TV contract and that of countries with larger user bases.

I also hope that the fans interpretation of 'stars' (the players they want to buy jerseys of) is better than the fan survey. I am simply stating that if they only rush to buy jerseys of mono-skilled monsters because of the salaries then i think this would be a shame.

Or,if it is linked to mins on court in their preferred position, I think this would be a shame too. Most of the better players are still receiving training and are still having to be played out of position to receive that. Any changes that cannot yet interpret who are the best players (MVP joke results highlights this perfectly).... will be disappointing in my eyes.

Your point about how to designate star players is a good one. The problem is that there has to be some sort of formula for determining this and whichever method is used there will be people who slide into the designation undeservedly and others who get shunted. Perhaps it should be a combination of nationality, statistics, ratings, and skills. Because if you are training a guy to improve him and playing him out of position and he isn't performing as well as another weaker player, why should he be rewarded because his overall skill numbers are higher? In my mind the formula should be a combination of the four things I mentioned ranked against the other players in the league, by position.

I think that your first two sentences are VERY important to remember for everyone when changes are announced. We have to wait and see what the effects and outcomes will be. When it was mentioned that nationality would be figured into the mix, people went crazy complaining about increased wages for foreigners. That was wrong. So here we are again and we have to learn, as a community, to be a bit less reactionary.