BuzzerBeater Forums

BB England > Helping BB-England Grow

Helping BB-England Grow

Set priority
Show messages by
From: Elmacca

This Post:
11
30702.4 in reply to 30702.3
Date: 6/10/2008 5:37:43 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
387387
Well, enjoy paying £4.50 for a magners in the city, I'll settle for paying £3.25 in the suburbs.

My point is not that $39.99 is expensive, although it might be in some countries like Slovakia, but that it is a premium to the going rate for online sports sims.

BB is a good game - but it's not better than Battrick, for instance, in my opinion and I am not prepared to pay over the odds for it.

This Post:
00
30702.6 in reply to 30702.5
Date: 6/18/2008 3:33:47 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
387387
For what it is worth, I've certainly been impressed with the current raft of improvements and if they continue to come online, may revise my position about the fee being value in relation to other games' membership packages.

This Post:
00
30702.8 in reply to 30702.7
Date: 6/19/2008 1:50:09 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
387387
I don't imagine this is new, but I would argue that teams who TIE at home and lose should suffer a quite strong adverse fan reaction - both in merchandising and ticket sales. If they win on TIE, fair enough, no harm done, but home teams have a duty to their fans to entertain - and win!
The adverse effect could be partially offset by high level PR staff members. I would suggest the full effect lasts three subsequent home games then is reduced by a third for each of three more home games.
If a team loses at home three times in a season while TIE, the adverse effect should last for the rest of the season and it should hit next season's season ticket sales (with high level PRs again having a mitigating effect).

From: Asasasa

This Post:
00
30702.9 in reply to 30702.8
Date: 6/19/2008 11:45:36 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
22
That would be very cruel to newcomers, who hope just to avoid relegation and TIE the best teams in the league. If this was put in place, they would suffer a lot financially.

From: Elmacca

This Post:
00
30702.10 in reply to 30702.9
Date: 6/20/2008 4:17:08 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
387387
I disagree. Given the number of bots at the lower levels, you are talking about one, maybe two games where TIE at home isn't an option for a new team. I think the pros far outweigh the cons there.

This Post:
00
30702.11 in reply to 30702.10
Date: 6/20/2008 4:23:16 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
304304
It's not going to happen.

NO ONE at this table ordered a rum & Coke
Charles: Penn has some good people
A CT? Really?
Any two will do
Any three for me
Any four will score
Any five are live
This Post:
00
30702.12 in reply to 30702.11
Date: 6/20/2008 5:09:34 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
387387
Mate, you're not the greatest communicator in the world. If I can be bothered to spend the time putting the case forward as to why I think a reasonable proposition is A Good Idea, I expect someone officially linked with the site to post a proper explanation as to why it's not under consideration. Not a one liner. There are plenty of other places on the forum to practice your one liners, I've done a bit of it myself lately, but I don't appreciate you responding in this manner on an official thread.

From: Asasasa

This Post:
00
30702.13 in reply to 30702.10
Date: 6/21/2008 12:25:05 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
22
I wouldn't be against it either and I understand where you are coming from, but I just cant see it being put in the game at this point.

This Post:
00
30702.14 in reply to 30702.12
Date: 6/21/2008 1:49:55 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
196196
In theory it sounds good but in practice it would hurt start up teams.... If you could link it to fan expectations then you might have a viable idea...

If each franchise was given a goal for the season based on previous seasons results / cash (not sure on the variables but you know what i mean) then TIE vs someone much better than you (again although not right) shouldnt yield as harsh a punishment. TIE and losing vs a lower ranked or team with lower expectations than you should.

I'd certainly be in favour of this.

Advertisement