BuzzerBeater Forums

i agree with you that the players the top teams are buying now do not have large enough salaries... we need to infuse the game with better players with higher salaries.. this is why we are going to be accelerating training after the allstar break.. we would have started it immediately but we thought it prudent to give our users a warning before doing such a drastic change.

I guess my concern is that teams I have no hope of matching financially atm are going to load up on 18 year old studs all the way down the depth chart of their trainee position and get not only a financial advantage but a player advantage that won't be surmountable.

That is going to completely end, not because anyone in that division is a better player, just because they were here a bit earlier. So in a meritocracy based system, explain how that makes sense?

So I don't expect teams in DIV to compete with teams in DI.. but i expect the game to be fun because teams in DIV can compete against teams in DIV, and promote to DIII.. and then to DII, and then to DI. If I were to make it so that DIV teams could compete against DI teams, by making the financial structure flat (i'm not sure if you are advocating this.. but it seems to be what you are suggestting) so that you could better compete for all the players, then I think the problem that older teams would have advantages would be even worse... this is what I gather is the problem with hattrick.

Taking a step back, it seems you are most upset because you can't get on the transfer list and find players to improve your team that you can afford right? This is because all the rich teams are buying those players at high prices... we agree that this a problem, we think the solution is to make the rich teams spend their money on even better players so they will no longer care to buy the players that you could use to improve your team.. just like you don't both to buy players that dont' improve your team right now.

Please if you still really disagree with our approach tell us why... we do appreciate the feedback

Then please don't make comments in forums the comment how you (the GM) benefit from this and me the struggling Div III team can only lament.

Can you link to the post where I said this? (I ask because I make a ton of posts each day and I can't remember offhand where everyone was).

I understand a Game Master is or what ever a GM means is supposed to regulate activities. This manuver seems to indicate there was an issue from the top having issues with getting beat by teams like me instead of what the real issue is.

If you're implying that GMs asked for this to happen to strengthen their teams, that's so far from the truth I can't even describe it.

If it's not what you're implying, then I don't understand what you're getting at.

fwiw i agree that we are definitely giving an advantage to teams who are currently in the top division.... this is because they are earning more revenue that the poorer teams. I think we've given a coherent argument as to why we are doing this. Your worry seems to be that doing so at this stage, given the other changes we are creating is going to create an insurmountable advantage for those teams. First of all.. in the short term you need only worry about competing against players within your division. Second, once promoted you will receive increased revenue, which should allow you to compete with players on that level. It should be that immediately upon promotion you start out low within that level and have to work to dominate the next level yes? On the flip side... when a top team gets demoted their income will be reduced, and they will have to sell players because (in the long term) the salaries will match the revenues for the division... this is certaintly not the case now.. but we are trying to accelerate towards this equilibrium, and the salary/revenue structure has been designed such that when the expected equilibrium of players is reached this is true.

in truth i think we made a fundamental mistake not giving teams better players from the start....or players with skills set according to their starting division. This of course would have probably outraged a lot of people as some players would arbitrarily get a better starting place.. just as giving top division teams more income does now.

I understand a Game Master is or what ever a GM means is supposed to regulate activities. This manuver seems to indicate there was an issue from the top having issues with getting beat by teams like me instead of what the real issue is.

If you're implying that GMs asked for this to happen to strengthen their teams, that's so far from the truth I can't even describe it.

This is supported by the dev team. We need to make this clear from the getgo. GMs have absolutely no advantages over any other user at all. It was never the case and never will be the case.

We listen to all opinions, including those from GMs. But we would never make a decision to advantage volunteer workers over anybody else.

Edited by BB-Oxidus (28.11.2007 01:28:12 CET)

Last edited by BB-Oxidus at 11/28/2007 1:28:12 AM

I think you are saying all the right things, but at the wrong time. To me, the game is still young and can improve. The financial structure will take a natural tilt (good teams being in Div I) but that should come in time and artificially introduced. If this was the case, then I think how you bring teams into BB and what their starting compliment needs to be looked at first. The same goes with the draft. A player in Div I getting the same type of player as a Div IV team is fair, but needs a mature game to see the definitive results (only to watch that Div I team sell the guy, make a ton of money - sorry off topic). I vote to let natural time allow for the teams to move where they need to

Keep these things in mind

Teams starting in the last few months - these teams have put in a lot of time in developing their team only to find out the players they develop can be found on what could be considered ebay. It was very demoralizing to me to see a player I paid 600k for 2 days before the influx be reduced to nothing more than an average player now going for 100k. Or the player I have been training from day one and finally has a strong statistic only to be bought for a cheap price. I wouldn't of spent the effort, sold all my players and just bought a team (no comments about my transfers please :) )

National Teams - if they showcase the best players, then it's just another chance for Div I and II teams to see a player they paid for or trained up because the rest of us just don't stack up. I would be ok with that if the game wasn't 3 season old and some countries not even 1 season old.

Top Level players - once a player plateaus, what do you plan on doing with him? No one can afford them, but the NT team needs them so they are going to get washed around

You probably have something with me needing to take a step back, so Ive taken a deep breath.

My issue, Ill try and keep it short and sweet this time, is that top teams are getting a huge infusion of potential off reintroducing these players at a bargain compared to what they would have cost in the past. Where before they had to draft well, save and scour for good players, its happening in bunches now. Several NBBA teams have picked up top flight 18 year olds that would have never been available because the teams probably wouldnt have sold them.

It seems like after growing very quickly in a short span of time, an artificial maturity is being put into place. I don't like that people are going to get much better over this season based on where they are rather than how well they run their team. I didn't have a problem with the few really good players out there on the market going for high prices. Now theres a ton and they aren't costing what they would have in the past. Im not advocating making the financial structure flat, but time and effort should be involved in growing your team. Top teams are getting a fat reward with little effort, there is compared to the past, low competition for these guys because there are so many. This is three large posts by me in one day on one topic, Ive said my peace. I'd rather see this be a slower more gradual process in terms of player and team development. Thats all.

I will say that the BB staff is painfully aware that changing anything about the game hurts players that have been playing the game for awhile.... perhaps we should have announced that we were going to start releasing players at midseason instead of just doing it. We did it because we felt the way the game was progressing was untenable... teams in the upper divisions were amassing HUGE amounts of cash because they had nothing to spend it on. We saw two choices, one reduce revenues of the top teams...(we felt that doing this would be repeating the fundamental flaw of hattrick in not having a real advantage to promotion and the other reasons i've discussed)... second, find ways to get the top teams players to spend money on and these were the ways we came up with.... maybe we should have just artificially scaled the ratings and salaries of the players in each division in order to balance the average budget of a team within that division.

The comment I am referring to was made in the US forum when there was talk about the banned team players making an appearance, the cost of those players and the fact that you make 700k in either a league match or a cup match. I know for a fact, I don't make 700k a week, or 2 or 3. So sure go ahead brag, doesn't bother me. Can we scrimmage before you get anymore players? :)

Any player who have been in the game since season 1, or midway through season 2 should have more money than I to spend on players - that is a fact. I did and I spent it - no questions asked. You are in the NBBA so you naturally will benefit by the increased pool of player available - again, not a big deal. I understand what you intention was and didn't take it personal until today when I reviewed this thread.

The issue comes in play when there is an issue like this and you make a comment like the one you made. The delivery is kiling this - intentions or not.

There is a lot of parity in this game. Parity is not a good thing, but artificially killing it instead of letting it just die is worse (in my opinion). The good teams and better players will come. I think the masses are saying let it happen in time and let the masses feel good about creating Uber players as time passes.

The comment I am referring to was made in the US forum when there was talk about the banned team players making an appearance, the cost of those players and the fact that you make 700k in either a league match or a cup match. I know for a fact, I don't make 700k a week, or 2 or 3. So sure go ahead brag, doesn't bother me. Can we scrimmage before you get anymore players?

I actually made that on TV games - if I was making $700K a week on ticket sales alone that would be indescribable.

It wasn't meant to say "hey little guys, eat poop".

Any player who have been in the game since season 1, or midway through season 2 should have more money than I to spend on players - that is a fact. I did and I spent it - no questions asked. You are in the NBBA so you naturally will benefit by the increased pool of player available - again, not a big deal. I understand what you intention was and didn't take it personal until today when I reviewed this thread.

The issue comes in play when there is an issue like this and you make a comment like the one you made. The delivery is kiling this - intentions or not.

What exact comment in this thread is the one that you're displeased with? (Again, I ask legitimately, I want to be sure I'm responding to the correct issue, and I'm not being facetious).

Edited by GM-JuicePats (11/28/2007 1:56:45 AM CET)

Last edited by Edju at 11/28/2007 1:56:45 AM

Agreed and a fair understanding. Please don't get me wrong, I like the game. Get pissed off when I lose and am happy when I win. I talked to about 15 people who are all playing the game one way or another - so as a supporter, you have my money already and I am getting my money's worth. Whatever your doing, it's working. I am just worried about retention.

Thanks for your time and back side (cuz you guys sure did take a licking)

Edited by Digging for Change (11/28/2007 2:00:43 AM CET)

Last edited by Digging for Change at 11/28/2007 2:00:43 AM

cuz you guys sure did take a licking

I've seen worse .. and worse will come ... :-)

Thx for your comments which are always welcome. It's nice to see mood swings depending on your results - as you said, we must be doing something right to make it important to you .. :-)