BuzzerBeater Forums

No it doesn't. Priority doesn't mean 100% investment. That's your misconception, not mine.

Not really. I'm saying that investing in players may be more profitable than investing in the arena and therefore be the better choice. In the end if you have to suggest someone who just started and can only do one or the other will you suggest to build some more seats or live with less income while he trains?

If a team worth 7-8 million will guarantee promotion, and I have enough seats to not spend my money trying to catch up to the arena sizes at the next level, I would go for the 7-8 million team.

I didn't choose the number randomly. With a 7 million investment you can build a better 20k arena than most 20k arenas...so if your trainees and players are worth 8 millions on the market you can turn them into a 1 million roster and 15k seats.

I agree.
I can't think of a season where I wasn't training anyone.

Are you saying you did something unprofitable or buying those trainees, staff and training them was the smarter choice compared to using that money to expand the arena even further?

Not sure I'm saying anything definitive either way. I've always enjoyed training, and honing my players to have the skills I'm looking for to best suit my team. I go a bit long on players, as in I like to keep them for most of their career. I could probably have made more money in the past by trading more often, but I like the way I have managed it thus far.
Anyhow, to attempt to sort of answer your question, it is possible that my training of players led to some losses that then led to me not making as much in revenue in the following games, but it is certain that the training of my players has led to wins later down the road after they've improved, and saved me money along the way since I didn't have to buy a specific player build, so I could instead focus money I would spend on acquiring players on my arena, trainer, and increasing player salaries each year.

This is my last post in this thread because you are getting a little dickish.

Well I didn't start the dickish comparison between countries (without even checking my facts I might add), did I? You tried to demean my points by saying that they are based on me being somewhat part of a "lesser" or "easier" BB nation, instead of reasoning it out.

It's nice that golden horde won with that arena but he could have fielded a better team and earned more money if he had a 20k arena.

I clearly said it out several times that you can certainly make even more money with a larger arena, but it's not a requirement for winning. You however said that "if you want to build the most competitive DI team possible you need at least a 20k arena". How much more competitive did Golden Horde need to be in order to win the NBBA? In Utopia even now it's not the 20k teams who are leading the pack in Utopia Heaven.

The only thing you sacrifice with arena building is the time/money it takes to build your arena while the benefits IMHO are worth it.

There you go. Just ignore everything I've been saying. If you spend millions on arena rather than putting them into players (trainees or undervalued ones), you are choosing a way to invest your money. You can calculate how long it takes to make that money back. Usually 20 weeks or more, because as Iguanadon Joe pointed out to fill more seats you need lower prices so the net gain is actually quite small (unless you're selling out AND charging the maximum price).

I saw just now the point about my arena. Currently I have the third highest selling arena in the EBBL thanks to the promotion bonus and record. I had no direct comparison and therefore assumed that I would not sell out at $19. I got the LT price wrong otherwise maybe I would not sell out the bleachers either and besides the only sell out at $19 pricing came after a win on the road. I'm absolutely positive I would not sell out at $20 even with the wrong price on LT.

******************************************************
If I ever get to mentor someone completely new I would suggest this:
1) Fire all the rubbish players you get at the start and keep only the ones you plan on keeping further . See you back in 4 weeks.
2) After 4 weeks, complete your roster. That is 6 cheap trainees and 6 starters. These starters would probably be around or less than 10k salary and with skills where it matters. You can do without starters and buy scrubs for less than 5k each if you're in a league full of bots. Lower numbered DIII (up to III.6, III.7) in England all had a high number of human managers. The league I started in had 13 human managers, 10 of whom were active. I wish I had started in a DV full of bots and young teams, instead of competing with, well yeah, multiple 20k+ arenas (there were 3 in my conference alone) from the get go.
2) Buy a competent or advanced trainer possibly with a specialty and a basic doctor with massage
3) Spend all the remaining money on the arena. With the new team bonus in the first 4 weeks you should have 5-600k and maybe more. (300k you start with+200k of extra money in the first 4 weeks+all the profits from having no salary floor and no payroll in the first 4 weeks)
4) try to win games while training, managing minutes and enthusiasm
5) train and after a season sell the trainees and get the replacement of the starters going (either younger with similar skills or same age but more skilled). Spend whatever left on arena, but anticipate expenses on better trainees, better staff and better players.
6) If you keep improving your team as under 5) you will promote at some point. You can stop swapping trainees when you have 2-3 solid superstar or better trainees who can be trained for 7-8 seasons. 2 of those guys will be the core of the team going forward. You can stop swapping starters when they are all under 32 and they can hold their own against your competition.

Last edited by Lemonshine at 9/12/2015 6:21:27 PM

Anyhow, to attempt to sort of answer your question, it is possible that my training of players led to some losses that then led to me not making as much in revenue in the following games, but it is certain that the training of my players has led to wins later down the road after they've improved, and saved me money along the way since I didn't have to buy a specific player build, so I could instead focus money I would spend on acquiring players on my arena, trainer, and increasing player salaries each year.

And I completely agree with this.

if you have to suggest someone who just started and can only do one or the other will you suggest to build some more seats or live with less income while he trains?

I already explained that I personally invested in trainees and a trainer while spending lightly on arena, then prioritized arena above everything after that. That is why I am telling you the argument has never been "spend 100% of your income on arena".

I didn't choose the number randomly. With a 7 million investment you can build a better 20k arena than most 20k arenas...so if your trainees and players are worth 8 millions on the market you can turn them into a 1 million roster and 15k seats.

If the new player in question can guarantee they can make 8 million off their trainees, that 'would' be an option. They don't hand out multimillion dollar trainees for free, and they are so valuable for a reason. You'll never replace the trainees you sold off so you're essentually starting from the bottom again. You replace trainees with 32 year old plus players because you only have 1 million of the 8 million left, meaning your roster will significantly decease in value over the course of a season.

Assuming you spent 4 seasons to get your trainees to that level, I'll have the 15000 seats by then doing it my way, with keeping my trainees, with a winning record. I'll probably have the million in cash as well. If I sold my trainees next season (which I won't), I'll have the 7 million you would spend on catching up to my arena to spend on players.

I already explained that I personally invested in trainees and a trainer while spending lightly on arena, then prioritized arena above everything after that. That is why I am telling you the argument has never been "spend 100% of your income on arena".

The argument is that there is NO REASON NOT to spend on the arena. As you and Iguanadon Joe have pointed out investing in trainees, cashing and reinvesting is probably a better option in the long term. And I will add that it is more profitable. The people who have 16k-17k arenas have spent millions on seats. Part of those millions might be better invested in training because it can definitely be more profitable. You can never have 100% return on investment from seats, while you can from training (even accounting for training costs and taxes) that is obvious.

You'll never replace the trainees you sold off so you're essentually starting from the bottom again.

Again the number wasn't random: I paid 1.2 million for my 3 guys a couple of seasons ago and they were all 19yo. The 22yo Superstar now has 72 outside TSP and 32 inside...while being 6'9'' tall. His highest skill is OD and he'll easily make into a 120 TSP SF. The other 2 guys are 21yo MVPs and are at 90 TSP each. None of them is below 6 stamina. Put a 600k-700k training cost over 3 seasons in there as well (my advanced trainer + fees).

1 million is (was?) enough to find 2 good trainees and slightly lesser one.

Assuming you spent 4 seasons to get your trainees to that level, I'll have the 15000 seats by then doing it my way, with keeping my trainees, with a winning record. I'll probably have the million in cash as well. If I sold my trainees next season (which I won't), I'll have the 7 million you would spend on catching up to my arena to spend on players.

Yeah because you think that people who invest in players invest 0 in the arena? You cannot count the money you make from the seats you already have as extra profits, you know...the guy who spends on trainees also goes on to build with the money the old seats give him. So you would not be comparing 15000 to 5000, but 15000 to 11000.

Last edited by Lemonshine at 9/12/2015 8:10:13 PM

You change your argument everytime someone proves their point. Have a good day. I'm going to join Phyr on this one.

I will say one last thing to everybody, including Trainerman who can reply when his ban ends.

Investing in players rather than seats is nothing new. 6 seasons ago my advice would have been absolutely and without doubt to use the money to invest in players. It was called daytrading and you could make several millions per season. That was BY FAR the most profitable investment you could do in this game.

It was so much more profitable that in my first Utopia league with mostly top class managers, including the winner of BBB (I Love Tehran), it was the Bulgarian (or Australian can't remember) D3 daytrader who got promoted. He made millions in a single season just on transactions. Some of the guys I beat in the first Utopia cup were also daytraders. I had to Crunch Time them to win because they could afford an absurdly higher payroll which had cost them a lot more than my own to even purchase.

I think one of the reasons they decided to stop daytrading was the incredible success it showcased in Utopia (pretty much every single daytrader promoted due to much better rosters and larger arenas).

So let's not kid ourselves, other forms of investment can be (and surely were) more profitable than investing in seats. Today training has become more profitable because changes were made to make it that way (it's been several seasons now, people should have seen it coming). It's worth investing in the right trainees as a priority over investing in the arena, both in terms of relatively short term profit and long term, as Iguanadon Joe has explained perfectly.

I don't understand why they have to be separated.

Because you can't spend the same dollar on an arena AND on a trainee. You spend the dollar once. You make a choice. As Lemonshine points out, going balls to the wall to build your arena to the exclusion of other interests is nonsense, total, utter sheer nonsense. Yet some people advocate that, (I think just to cause controversy, since it is such clear nonsense).

And

That is why I am telling you the argument has never been "spend 100% of your income on arena".

P.Blue, maybe your argument has not been that, but that is exactly the silly argument some people are making. Silly, isn't it?

Last edited by Mike Franks at 9/13/2015 12:05:15 AM

What if I have $2 dollars, Mike?

The first one you cannot spend on both, you have to make a choice. Same for the second one.

Thank you for a silly question to lighten the tone.