BuzzerBeater Forums

I totally agree with Charles that punishment for game forfeit will not actually help, because one should just buy $1K players and fill the squad. On the other hand, making TV revenue strictly depended on players salaries (with maximum like today), and attendance income depended not only on result, but also on the point difference - these changes might help a lot.

I also think that the mechanism of training and GS cause many managers (and me among them) to give up a lot of games in order to train effectively and maintain GS, especially while staying in the cup. Such a behavior may cause several teams unfairly not to enter to playoffs (for example after losing to a strongest team which decided to play with backups and consequently lose to the rival team which finally found themselves in playoffs unfairly).

In order to courage the managers to play mainly with their strongest squad, dependence on played minutes should be changed. Kobe and LeBrone play 40+ minutes every game and still perform at the top level. 100 weekly minutes should not harm the shape of a player. Furthermore, the effectiveness of training with less 48 weekly minutes should be linearly proportional, so players with 20-25 played minutes will still have a relatively good training.

I've seen a few suggestions that requiring teams to avoid a forfeit in order to receive arena revenue would solve the problem. We can definitely look at doing something like this if it would help, but I don't understand why it really solves the problem. If we instituted this rule, wouldn't a team using this strategy simply then hire a few very cheap players and lose games by 100 points instead of by forfeit?

It is like that and if there exist an option to have zero roster, which have in fact destructive result for the club, there isnt anything wrong about it, while it is quite similar like having on roster very cheap players.

If you take it as a strategy for the events where is club temporary saving power (like league games while playing cups), is quite understandable that behaviour like this is in fact a necessary tactical factor, therefore is impossible to avoid any kind of misapplication...

If there would exist any strong (even just) attendance decrease, it would mean that would be impossible to play cups or B3 succesfully with thin roster, because of losing money thanks to much lower attendance in league games than teams with wide roster. Aditionally these from small countries would have advantage even bigger.

So the only thing is to punish relegated teams even stronger. I know that team is punished enough to be relegated, have lesser income etc. But usually that is because of poor decisions (or by the decision to give up), therefore a logic which fail and doesnt understand the game mechanisms. Why should have any stronger advantage on the league below then?
I mean mostly are promoted teams developing themselves for a long time to do that.
At this point it is not like that re-promotion is something usual, but is usual that these teams are winning most of their games, so these managers live in the illusion that are handling their team well and just had a bad luck, will repeat same mistakes and by the time become even more frustrated. It is about motivation to change theirs behaviour and will to learn something about the game.

Why would you have a problem with that? By getting to Div 1he'd already shown he has a team which can promote already.

Also the way your ideal mechanism works makes no sense to me. Rather, the promoted team should be glad to make playoffs and the relegated team should expect to make them (if competing).

:)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

Sounds strange, doesnt it?

There are various things which get promoted team into longterm struggle. Stadium capacity, other kind of players, other kind of staff etc.

On the other side relegated team already have these things, therefore doesnt have to do decisions which put him into any struggle.

If the system offer options to make a mistakes, be it. More mistakes managers can make, better for the game. However everytime is huge mistake (relegation) made without any need for thinking about change in club management, is that manager subconsciously confident about external reasons that it ended up like that. Therefore stick at the same system of playing. And indeed will stick on it if will lose only like 4 games next season, relegated.

Last edited by aigidios at 5/25/2010 6:40:22 AM

i agree with everything you have said but i do have a reason/question why i think the rule should be implemented anyway.

is the player with 0 players stopping every manager that plays him that week from one pos training 3 players (full 48 mins) for that week?

if yes then i think the rule has to be implemented. (or a change of mins for such games or both.)


if no then its fine as it is.

simple

Last edited by zyler at 5/25/2010 10:04:50 AM

Well obviously forfeits are stopping other managers from getting 48 minutes for 1 position training for all their trainees.

I think that all that needs to be changed is that forfeited games result in no arena income for the team that forfeits.
Then I don't care whether the team has 3 players or 0 players or 100 players.

Other managers might be annoyed that their trainee only gets 43 minutes instead of 48 minutes in the event of a forfeit, however they should realise that they get a gauranteed win, and they get decent minutes for their players and there is no chance of injury.
So at the end of the day it is probably even.

Well, now I'm convinced. Thanks for the thorough explanation, Charles. Yeah, I guess when you break down the numbers like that it does seem to deflate the strategy.

Its no problem either way as long as everyone knows that 'anything goes' and its not frowned upon. It just seems contradictory to add more 'realism' to the game engine and other facets of the game and then ignore other points which often infuriate the majority of your userbase when they point out areas which still don't appear up to scratch.

It isn't realistic that the stadium revenue is almost the same in countries with great difference in BB audeience,but "casually" you doesn't feel damaged by this lack of realsim,right?
As Charles yet said,the "zero rostering strategy" at this moment isn't really advantageous over the other strategies,so I agree with him that this is a situation to observe to eventually take a decision against it.But honestly I don't think that this will be ever a winning stratgey,because if I decide to re-build my team,it would be more intelligent to buy young trainees and training them while playing wiht them in the league,as you would have the same result on the field(to lose),but training your players

Its no problem either way as long as everyone knows that 'anything goes' and its not frowned upon. It just seems contradictory to add more 'realism' to the game engine and other facets of the game and then ignore other points which often infuriate the majority of your userbase when they point out areas which still don't appear up to scratch.

It isn't realistic that the stadium revenue is almost the same in countries with great difference in BB audeience,but "casually" you doesn't feel damaged by this lack of realsim,right?

I dont feel damaged by the no roster effect either. I was even contemplating it 2 weeks ago (well a hybrid version with just a couple of trainees!) - Might see what Charles and co have to say about the end of season salary situation and consider again depending on that!

Anecdotally, England has a population of 50 million or so and drew an average of 683005 people to Premiership soccer games on any given game week this past season. The USA has a population of around 300 million and they drew an average of roughly 134000 per week (with 2 less games) for the MLS. For American football with much bigger stadiums and far more interest than soccer the TOP twenty teams in the NFL draw an average of 1.1 million fans per weekend, which is nowhere near the 6 times population enjoyed by the USA. My point is that just because a country is larger doesn't mean its attendances should be higher.
I don't see this as a lack of realism at all.


---carefully steps away from enormous can of worms opening up---

Don't worry about the worms ;D
My point with Superfly Guy was that,being BB a simulation,it's normal that there are some unrealistic things in the game,but if they not affect the structure of the game giving advantages to someone,there is no need to change them.Training is unrealistic,but is the same for everyone,so while it's correct to ask some little change in his structure,a major change in it would have enormous effect in the game.There's a lack of "intellectual honesty" when we talk about the unrealistic things of the game only when they could potetntially go against our own interest

Going OT,I can say you that Brazil has a greater population than England,and a nearly similar interest in (european) football,so it would be normal that Brazil has more attendence than England.But the difference is that English Football has an higher competitivity level of Brazilian football(which is however great),so it's more attrcative for the rest of the world,and Premiership is the richer football league in the world.As in BB the major parte of the attendence come from the palace,higher is the competitivity,higher should be the incomes.It's not a relation:
Bigger=Richer but More competitive=Richer
At the time bigger means more competitive,that's the point,when a small country will have the first division at the level of the NBBA,the incomes should be similar