BuzzerBeater Forums

BB Global (English) > "zero" rostering - right or wrong?!

"zero" rostering - right or wrong?!

Set priority
Show messages by
This Post:
00
144528.59 in reply to 144528.48
Date: 5/25/2010 6:31:05 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
404404


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

This Post:
00
144528.60 in reply to 144528.59
Date: 5/25/2010 8:30:09 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
196196


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!

This Post:
00
144528.61 in reply to 144528.59
Date: 5/26/2010 4:15:27 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
458458
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---

Once I scored a basket that still makes me laugh.
This Post:
00
144528.62 in reply to 144528.61
Date: 5/26/2010 5:40:14 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
404404
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

This Post:
00
144528.63 in reply to 144528.62
Date: 5/26/2010 10:32:02 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
2121
in real life Bigger=richer is not true,and the brazilian league is a lot more competitive than the english league for example,there are about 8 or 10 teams each year that fight for the tittle or that are in a really similar level,but our level is a bit lower than the one played in europe,although some players were nothing here,like Doni and Julio Baptista and became stars there

stoping the off-topic,I agree that the realism argument is bad here,and if in the end the team that uses this estrategy is penalised by the estrategy itself for me theres no problem but one,the training minutes of the other team