BuzzerBeater Forums

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.

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

Sorry for the confusion; but I always meant tax on spectators revenue..not on the seats...
JUST and example; dont get back to me on the exact numbers..:D
0-10000 spectators watching 0%
10001-15000 10%
15001-20000 15%
20001-25000 19%

So if you have a 20000 seater with 18000 spectators watching:
0->10000 spectators watching 0%
10001->15000 10%
15001->18000 15%




Last edited by GM-Rijswijker at 1/23/2009 11:07:46 AM

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.

I would say also that most german managers ain't stupide and done well so far, and i could believe that the overall quality of serie A and the german Bundesliga ain't far away. If i look at team their with a similiatr balance, like this one (26869)(ok it has a better bilance, the teams behind him in hs conference ain't stronger) i would say they are weaker then the german league ... Maybe because they don't look in the future. like the Hambourgh Bulls did, when they started to build a huge arena early, and now they earn they succes for it.

And the bulls still made money, so it is possible that good players could play at a top team, without ruining it ... And the salary of the good player with incerease dramatically in the next seasons.

Last edited by CrazyEye at 1/23/2009 11:00:36 AM

So i made a proposal,which punishes the country without competitivity....... and will penalize who have enourmous palace in the weakest countries

Take a step back and just try and think for a moment about what your saying within your speech and why the above 2 extracts really are complete nonsense.

just to clarify i meant that any modifier to adjust for the size/competitiveness by country would be small.

maybe should start another thread for this topic, it wasnt originally part of this thread.

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

Sorry for the confusion; but I always meant tax on spectators revenue..not on the seats...
JUST and example; dont get back to me on the exact numbers..:D
0-10000 spectators watching 0%
10001-15000 10%
15001-20000 15%
20001-25000 19%

So if you have a 20000 seater with 18000 spectators watching:
0->10000 spectators watching 0%
10001->15000 10%
15001->18000 15%

ok,we have the same idea :D