BuzzerBeater Forums

I disagree with you. I don't think that, looking at this "problem" with anything other than the narrowest of perspectives, you can say it is a big deal for the game. I just don't agree that less than half of one percent of the total number of users constitutes a viable lobby. I also don't believe that it will present a financial burden for you. You have 700 courtside seats, which you sell at $138. Of your last ten home games, the most tickets you have sold for those seats is 694. The average of the last 8 home league games is 663, or $91,580. With 500 seats you would have to charge $183 to make the same amount of money. I believe that you will be able to sell 500 seats at $183. You would only have to sell 457 of them at max price to make the same money.
You can do something about it. On February 1st you can raise your ticket prices. You can build 13 more box seats. You can build a combination of bleachers, lower tier, and box seats, knowing that you will have $400,000 coming to you after the all-star break. OR you can complain about how it is an "incredible unfair measure" (hyperbole much?).
The effort is bull. I, too, put in a lot of time and effort to make my arena economically successful and efficient. If you can't make up $27,600 that you will lose from your 200 extra seats, then I have trouble believing that any real effort exists.

I do think your final point is valid- that an extension of the seat deconstruction would help managers who are losing seats. However, we should only be able to reconfigure the number of seats we will be losing, like the suggestion about reclassifying the existing seats instead of removing them. That seems like a very good solution.

To even begin to equate anything that happens in this game with the holocaust or slavery qualifies that for the worst post ever and makes any more discussion moot.

could be overreacting, but still fairness is something which includes minorietes and majorities ... We learn that in live and history, and even with such drastic examples to keep it in mind when people talk with fairness just looking on majorities.

I deleted it out of the posting, but please consider the points make in the posting and thing also on the minority and not only the majority ;)

I also could say that the econic change, make the gap bigger betwenn new and old teams, or premier division teams and lower.

becuase the income increased dramatically for first division team, independent from the arena - a thing i also mentioned several times. With the old system we was pretty close to a equilibrium, so i got nearly 200k more each week in comparision to the old econic system.

Edit: Just for you i didn't had compared the changes with it, the point for that was realism.

Last edited by CrazyEye at 12/17/2009 12:47:19 PM

I also could say that the econic change, make the gap bigger betwenn new and old teams, or premier division teams and lower.

becuase the income increased dramatically for first division team, independent from the arena - a thing i also mentioned several times. With the old system we was pretty close to a equilibrium, so i got nearly 200k more each week in comparision to the old econic system.

O_o"

I agree with you

O_o"

You've in the division a team that is selling 22k seats, the gap is bigger than you think (i think :p)

I also could say that the econic change, make the gap bigger betwenn new and old teams, or premier division teams and lower.

becuase the income increased dramatically for first division team, independent from the arena - a thing i also mentioned several times. With the old system we was pretty close to a equilibrium, so i got nearly 200k more each week in comparision to the old econic system.

O_o"

I agree with you

O_o"

You've in the division a team that is selling 22k seats, the gap is bigger than you think (i think :p)

if i show you my weekly income you would cry :( i amaked 6-7 times more money then a average third league club in my country(and also teams with good developed arenas for their stage), the season before i made the same money.

Did you ever read my post?

I did not say it was a big deal for me and there is no need to make some basic sum/multiplying thing in order to show it. I can say it, but I know for some other users this is not that simple and easy like it is for me. And you know what? I'm totally with them because I can image what it would feel like.

(122870.45)

Seems that the idea of reconfiguring seats (taking in consideration the difference in building cost) or allow for a small deconstruction period seems to be a reasonable measure at the end.

The thing is: Will BBs allow it?


Last edited by Zero, the Magi. at 12/17/2009 5:19:06 PM

i hoped combined with hard cap, because when you are forced to change things over night you need security and knowledge that it worked out and not a wild guess building period.

I'm kinda agreeing with this arena cap but it is unfair for the others. It is good to imagine BB is getting more realistic but everyone's economy here would be greatly affected. I just want to suggest to increase the bleachers and lower tier prices and make the fans attend the games more than before.

It is good to imagine BB is getting more realistic but everyone's economy here would be greatly affected.

That isn't even remotely true.

I already have 550 sidecourt seats, and today I have been able to build another one more.
The last News stated that the cap was going to be applied immediately.
I wonder if this is a bug, or a change of mind.