BuzzerBeater Forums

One possible solution to this particular problem, and one that I believe I suggested a looooooong time ago when this issue was being discussed, was to begin new countries in d.iv. Each season the top 16 teams would advance until they arrived in d.i.

I suppose that the point why managers from small countries stays in the game is - they can begin in higher leagues and have an advantage on these which will start later. Is good to have here as much managers as possible, also as much countries as possible.

But as best I can tell, the complaint is "I can't try to win the B3, the league, and the cup at the same time". This has always been a fundamental design choice in BuzzerBeater, as I mentioned in the other megathread we have at the moment -- teams have to make choices. You cannot train optimally, perform in the league, perform in the cup, and perform in the B3. Is it easier to do all these in Japan than in Spain? Yes, because there are more teams in the top league where the best teams have a large advantage and might win without using their best resources.

That is not the complaint, Charles.

If I want to fight the B3 im forced to pass cup rounds, if I dont do it, I wont have the same enthusiasm as little countries contenders. In Spain you have 6500 users playing a competition of 8192 teams. That means that the 80% of Spanish cup contenders are active people (in Japan are 33 of 256, only 12,89% of the contenders, 87,11% bots), that means high posibilities of facing managers which play spending enthusiasm in the Spanish cup (sometimes CT since round 1-2), which force you to put good players in the cup, destroying game shapes. I played this year B3 at 80% of my true strength.
Also we are forced to TIE everything which sometimes means losing key matches against rivals of the league.
If we want to compete at 100% in the B3 our only option is to give league matches and focus in the cup and 1 league match/week. But this means losing lots of matches which risks the domestic league and has a very bad impact in the attendance and the economy of the club. If we go for the league and gave the cup we are also playing at the 80% of our strengths, as far as we lose the 3rd PIC option of the week.

And If I cant play the B3 at the 100% of my strengths, I wont fight for it. This year I lost by 1 in the court of the number 1 of the world (at least it was nº1 last week, now nº 3) with demential game shapes. I was very disappointed after the match.
I dont understand why I have to play with this disadvantages, a little country team can:

*Train 6
*TIE everything
*Pass cup rounds easily
*Have high game/shapes and enthusiasm without losing a single match

Is not only that is easier to access to the B3, as you said. They are playing a different B3.

I said that I wouldnt fight for the B3 next seasons, and that is a fact in the current conditions. In Spain a team never won ACBB and cup in the same year in 11 seasons, which speaks clearly about what kind of domestic competitiveness we have. I think that is a much more stronger challenge to be the first team that wins both ever than going for a devaluated and unfair competition like B3, where the HCA is a factor (10-2 to the local teams in 1/4 and 1/8, 6-2 and 4-0) and little country managers have full advantages.

Do you want a pair of realistic ideas to have a fair B3 and give prestige to the trophy?

* Avoid HCA in B3 (we are trying to find the best of the world, arent we?)
* Dont count the enthusiasm and the team spirit in this arcade games. With this little key detail the history of the B3 will change forever.

Little countries still will have some advantages, in terms of training and the fact that they can reduce salary while not playing the B3 and keep succeeding in domestic competitions. But big countries teams at least will be able to show their true power. [I really think that im not the 14 of the world : ), and trust me, some of my leaguemates (maybe 12 of 16, probably more) are top100 by far].

Last edited by LeYeNdiNhA at 2/1/2010 10:03:29 AM

* Avoid HCA in B3 (we are trying to find the best of the world, arent we?)
* Dont count the enthusiasm and the team spirit in this arcade games. With this little key detail the history of the B3 will change forever.

Very good and interesting ideas, indeed I would like to see that, especially no HCA, but I also see your point in not counting enthusiasm (for the sake of figuring out the match set it by default on 7 for all players) in B3.

*Train 6
*TIE everything
*Pass cup rounds easily
*Have high game/shapes and enthusiasm without losing a single match

I don't want to argue on little things, but although some may be true, they seldom occur at the same time, and if there are some teams that manage this, claiming it is the standard for all teams from small countries is in the extremes. I get your point, but just want to clarify this so participants in the discussion doesn't get mislead.

Say a new team is created in Greece and another one in Nippon/Nigeria whatever...

After 1 season,which is the better one??


You all know the answer,don't you??That's the problem and it need to be fixed somehow..


PS:How come none of the BB's have replied yet?This thread has reached 300+ posts already..

I think no HCA, and entu @5 would be great for B3.
Nice suggestion.

Last edited by Kukoc at 2/1/2010 1:01:30 PM

PS:How come none of the BB's have replied yet?

If you read the whole thread thoroughly you will discover that BB-Charles have replied with one of the longest answers I've seen him dedicate to a thread, even if their general rule is to read and follow a thread without interfering to allow as many views as possible to be presented. ;)

How come none of the BB's have replied yet?

Charles got fired?

If I had invest all my money in stadium, I would never promote that year to 4th division, and I would have to deal with atendances between 700 and 1500 for a pair of years.

I noticed that after my first arena upgrade that my attendance rose, even though I did not sell out before the upgrade. Meaning the % did not rise, but since I had a higher total seats, I sold more seats. This would mean that the attendance formula, to some degree, take (or at least took) into account the total size of the arena. The income will not come so soon in for instance Spain as in a smaller country, but it would come sooner than if it was not built at all, because when you have star players with a total salary of 200k (or an average of 10+) and you only have 5050 seats to offer, losing potential income.

The default maximum income for a starting arena is 65750$

Your first matches

1232, 772, 1656, 1439, 2464, 2499 and 2234

gave you an average attendance of 1765 (about 35%). Given the seats were distributed evenly you would have an income of 35% of 65750$=approx 23000$ + 50000$ for a total of 73000$ the first 4 weeks. It is no doubt lower than your average small country starting team (approx 20-30k lower), but it still does not negate the importance of building arena. As you mentioned (in my first quote from you) if you had invested all your money in stadium, you would never promote that seaon to 4th division. But you would have had 73000$x5=365000$, turned into bleachers (at 50$ each equals 7300 seats) with an income potential(based on starting average prices) of 148750$ ((4500+7300=12800$)x10=128000$)+(450x35$=15750$)+(50x100$=5000$)), Split into the 35% income you would earn approx 52000$= 29000$ more and over twice your starting income(except the 4 week supporting cash). It would take less than 4 weeks to earn back the invested money, less than 12 weeks with the worst attendance percentage you have recorded, some more if you consider the attendance is not linear. But still, you have the seats as a solid foundation to be able to afford more expensive seats like lower tier and courtside seats to make your team more secure from losing attendance since the bleachers are the seats most heavily affected by losses. Arena upgrades was on a wild wide scale race forcing teams that wanted to stay competitive in the future to build arena no matter what, resulting in the implementation of caps on arena we have today. By doing this they prevented the income to differ more between countries focusing only on arena on the upper scale of arena sizes. One of the main reasons was to support different possible tactics to succeed. On the lower end of arena however, it is an cornerstone for any team, And I can not stress the importance of building enough seats. I am not blaming anyone of beeing stupid or choosing "the wrong" tactic, but in retrospect we see that focusing heavily on arena gave many teams a head start. And I am not saying teams have neglected arena, but perhaps underestimated it slightly.

Last edited by Svett Sleik (U21-Scout Norge) at 2/1/2010 1:47:47 PM

I agree with your b3 suggestions. Of course, there is plenty of room to argue where the enthusiasm level should be set (a level of 5 would lead every game being 130-120).

Thanks for pointing that out,I'm sorry.Can you give me the link to his reply??


PS:You still didn't answer my question though.

I noticed that after my first arena upgrade that my attendance rose, even though I did not sell out before the upgrade. Meaning the % did not rise, but since I had a higher total seats, I sold more seats. This would mean that the attendance formula, to some degree, take (or at least took) into account the total size of the arena.

Was it only after your first arena upgrade this happened? I seriously doubt that the arena formula takes into account the size of the arena other than the soft and hard cap (you cannot sell more seats than you have). Couldn't it have been that some factors changed as you upgraded your arena? Maybe you won a game, played a team with more STH?
I am very sorry if this is too much out of topic.