BuzzerBeater Forums

i think its not fair for anyone to compare arena size and says how come yours is bigger.

everyone here is given the opportunity to do what you want wit your team. now what happens next due to that action shouldnt be a indicator of how one is to another.

also regarding free agents, if you stop it then i think its a waste of talent why., . . the reason they are put back is because aside from being able to be develop or still be develop and the sort of being able to help your team due to his talent that was develop

So you think it is impossible to have a bigger arena in leagues where the competition is higher?

It's not only a matter of investment (more difficult yes, impossible no), but the attendance changes significantly if you have a 16-1 record or if you are in a more competitive league with more losses.

And now you want to punish the teams, which have choosen an tactic, which seem to work out better in the long term?

1. It wasn't me who suggested to tax the arenas (although I don't think it would be a bad idea).
2. What does it have to do with punishing?
3. Well, at least a couple of recent changes (potential, economy) have modified quite a bit the long term programming.

1) Are Italys arenas a fair benchmark to compare all division 1 arenas??

It was just an example.
The economy was rebalanced considering the 'global' economy of bb. At the moment, smaller (less competitive) countries are richer than bigger (more competitive) countries.
For me this is a fact... but of course I might be wrong.

This arena size argument holds no water... everyone has had the money and ample opportunity to buy more seats... the italian community have been almost 'stubborn' in their refusal to follow in the footsteps of others who have spent the time & money to have 25,000 seater arenas.

please, see my previous post. I am in division II (coming up from V) and in the last two seasons the only way I had to expand my arena were from the promotion bonus and from selling players. My net income each week is few ks... and if you check my standings you'll see that selling good players is not an option.

Edit. I forgot. Based on the results, the italian community ain't doing so bad :)

Last edited by Newton07 at 1/23/2009 8:26:53 AM

It's not only a matter of investment (more difficult yes, impossible no), but the attendance changes significantly if you have a 16-1 record or if you are in a more competitive league with more losses.

That is exactly, why I gave ESV Laim as a example (even better, have a look at the Tall Blacks.. they are usually between 40% and 60% at the end of the season). I knew that somebody would write about the 16-1 record of the Bulls... but that is not the point, I think.

1. It wasn't me who suggested to tax the arenas (although I don't think it would be a bad idea).
2. What does it have to do with punishing?
3. Well, at least a couple of recent changes (potential, economy) have modified quite a bit the long term programming.

1. I know that is wasn't you, who initially suggested it. I just addressed my post to you, because you have been the last one that you have been the last one who tried to "defend" this idea.

2. Less money is not a punishment? Maybe you could buy one of my players (just joking) :P

3. About the potential: You are right, the implementation of the potential changed a lot for long-term strategies. The thing here is, that it affected all teams in the same way, didn't it?


I think, if all bigger nations would have acted the way the italian mangers did it, we wouldn't have this discussion. But it is the choice of the manager if he want to have the best team NOW or if he want the stay at the top for more then 2 seasons but therefor 2 seasons later.
Probably a few Italian managers decided to, that they want to win the BBB asap and therefor the others had to spent their money in new players to have a chance of winning the Serie A... and so on, but it still was their own choice how to spend the money.

We should keep in mind that there is a big difference of changes, which affect all managers in the same way and changes that favour some people and handicap others.

I think you are 100% wrong about the big=poor small=rich.
I would be willing to bet that the #1 italian team has more assets than I do, the current #1 Thai team. I might have more cash on hand, but his roster has ten times the value of my cash on hand and roster put together.

Superfly wasn't talking about the italian community's performance on the court. He was speaking only about the size of your arenas.

2. Less money is not a punishment?

Not at all. Was it a punishment to introduce taxes on the arena income? It was a way to rebalance the economy (strongly needed, btw). My whole point here is to discuss if the economy after the changes is fair for all. If it is, perfect, let's keep it the way it is. But if it's not (and I think it's not) let's see how to make it fairer.

I am not talking here for my own interest. The teams I compete with are in my exact same situation.

3. About the potential: You are right, the implementation of the potential changed a lot for long-term strategies. The thing here is, that it affected all teams in the same way, didn't it?

Of course no, it didn't. Teams with all star players already above the new potential cap or far below it were penalized less than team with all star players close to the potential cap.

I think if training speeds went back and stayed as they were in the beginning the fun factor / money factor and feel good factor would get back in the game.

More pops = more excitement = better players around etc etc...

Sure there will be a camp of people (plodders) micro managing everything at their disposal to inch closer to their rivals..

As it stands now - training PF/C gives good immediate team performance but little monetary reward and training guards to sell (if you are brave enough to part) will give you a justifiable training profit.

The arena argument is from those who didnt or cant now build seats as quickly as people did previously because training profits are down the toilet... so why not call for training profits to be increased rather than another tax? (when i say why this is general not a why just at you ;-)

Superfly wasn't talking about the italian community's performance on the court. He was speaking only about the size of your arenas.

I know, the point is that for what I've seen on the court most of the italian managers in division I are not stupid and have done very well so far overall. So maybe there was a reason why their arenas are smaller.
The day the taxes on the arena revenues were introduced we all said: 'shit, we should have made bigger arenas'.
My opinion is that my arena was well suited for the previous economy and it's not for the new one. But at that time the choice was, shall I try to promote to div. II and stay there or expand my arena? I still believe than the first choice is also economically more convenient.

for example a 10% of palace incomes with palace between 10000 and 15000 - 15% of palace incomes with palace between 15000 and 20000 - 20% with palace between 20000 and 25000 - 25% with palace over 25000
This could be a good idea...

exactly.

I was talking with mark lenders about that in the italian help forum,and he justly says that a taxes on the number on seats is unfair,because as someone says,there are some teams which lose competitivity in the past and now will be penalized,above all a people with a palace with 10,000 seats which would have boxed less than someone with 9,999 seats...
So i made a proposal,which punishes the country without competitivity,but not the people who have loste many money to widen their arenas.The taxes will be paid not on bases of divisons or number of seats,but of number of effective spectators in every game.So,the taxes will be paid according to the single game and will penalize who have enourmous palace in the weakest countries,because in countries who are more competitive and there are frequent decreases of spectators flow,the teams will not pay taxes in the match in which have few fans in the arena;in the countries with players without competitivity but only enormous palaces teams will pay more taxes on more incomes,in the measure of your first proposal

This is the basic idea

If someone think that this could be not enough to balance the differences between countries,this idea could be integrated from
Another system ,tied to that precedent,could be to estabilish a different threshold to make to go off the taxes betwwen countries with a ranking who evaluates the strenght of the teams of various countries

Last edited by Steve Karenn at 1/23/2009 10:36:58 AM

Sorry, I have to ask what exactly you mean with the "previous economy" and what you mean with the "new one"? Because I had always the feeling that my arena is to small and I still have the feeling ;) (btw. I also started in D. IV).

When I go back to the idea mentioned earlier in this thread that the tax should raise if the arena gets bigger I can just smile ;) Just give everybody the same tax (in %) and I am fine with it. But wait... all teams of same divisions already give the same % of money to their players (20% in first division and 10% in second division).

I don't really know if the economy need a change at the moment, but if there is a necessity to change something plz do not favour some against others.

Just one more sentence to the potential. As far as I remember there haven't been players over the softcap of "All-Star" at the moment it was implemented. And managers who had players, that were close to the cap were free to choose to train other positions (I am sure there was not a single team with players close to the cap at every single position). I wont say anything more about this point, because it is in the past and has almost nothing to do with his topic ;)

I think if training speeds went back and stayed as they were in the beginning the fun factor / money factor and feel good factor would get back in the game.

More pops = more excitement = better players around etc etc...

Sure there will be a camp of people (plodders) micro managing everything at their disposal to inch closer to their rivals..

As it stands now - training PF/C gives good immediate team performance but little monetary reward and training guards to sell (if you are brave enough to part) will give you a justifiable training profit.

The arena argument is from those who didnt or cant now build seats as quickly as people did previously because training profits are down the toilet... so why not call for training profits to be increased rather than another tax? (when i say why this is general not a why just at you ;-)

I couldn´t agree more. I really hope we are not headed to the HT-style training. I remember with dread waiting for weeks and weeks for someone to pop. Thats no fun at all and one of the main reasons i quit that game.