BuzzerBeater Forums

A) He asked me to.

B) My suggestion to you is to keep up the good work, Julius.

C) My suggestion to Mr. Burns is to keep up the good work, Monty.

What is it with you people. A guy asks me to delineate long-term programming for him with specifics and not one but two of his cuntrymen jump down my throat when I do it. That seems a little unfair.

Our record is 1-1, me and the AS Barroom Heroes. Guess that one day a week when he can't beat me (since he beats me 7 days a week and twice on Sundays) was the day we played when I beat him...

A) He asked me to.

B) My suggestion to you is to keep up the good work, Julius.

C) My suggestion to Mr. Burns is to keep up the good work, Monty.

What is it with you people. A guy asks me to delineate long-term programming for him with specifics and not one but two of his cuntrymen jump down my throat when I do it. That seems a little unfair.

Our record is 1-1, me and the AS Barroom Heroes. Guess that one day a week when he can't beat me (since he beats me 7 days a week and twice on Sundays) was the day we played when I beat him...

A)It was clearly a rhetorical question, since it's obvious that making any kind of long-term programming without knowing what the rules will be is impossible. That's why I'm just going to continue to do what I've been doing, since it's brought me pretty good results so far.
And by the way, since a few people have had trouble understanding what I was saying: I am NOT saying that my team specifically is in some kind of trouble, nor that it has been penalized more than other teams in my league. I am just saying that it cannot be said that it is our fault (and by our I mean all the top 5 divisions in our coutry) that we have been economically hurt, because the changes did not depend on something we did or did not do.

B)Good suggestion.

C)Another good suggestion.

D)No, that one day a week where I can't beat you is Thursday, when during a friendly, I play with a third-string PG as center, a SG and C at point guard, a C at small forward, and a back-up SF at shooting guard. ;)

Genreally speaking, a rhetorical question is not couched in this way:

Please answer me, but not with a generic useless answer. I want to specifically know what kind of long-term programming you would advise me "having in mind that the rules are not static".

Thank you.

So I did my best. Sorry if such a lowly player as myself from such a small and worthless country deigned to correspond with mighty Italians.

I did some checking, and Gachai is actually 1-2 against the mighty AS Barroom Heroes, not 1-1 as I first stated.

While your team of heroes and daytrading bonus babies hovers around the relegation mark of your incredibly competitive conference, my dullards are sitting pretty at first in my ridiculously easy one. Sadly, I only made a profit of $619,000 this past week. This 40% player's association robbery is killing a first division guy like me!


Last edited by somdetsfinest at 8/31/2008 5:22:28 AM

Genreally speaking, a rhetorical question is not couched in this way:

Please answer me, but not with a generic useless answer. I want to specifically know what kind of long-term programming you would advise me "having in mind that the rules are not static".

Thank you.

So I did my best. I apologize for not 'getting' you. You asked with a please and ended with a thank you, the essence of sincerity and politeness. Should I no longer see you in this light? Should I change my opinion of you to be a rude, calculating, person who takes advantage of sincerity and comes to the table of a web forum full of cunning and vituperation?

You can see me however you want. My point was just that it is simply impossible to do any kind of planning when the rules of the game can change this drastically from one week to the next. Is this point that hard to understand?

I did some checking, and Gachai is actually 1-2 against the mighty AS Barroom Heroes, not 1-1 as I first stated.

See, The Janitor was right! ;))

While your team of heroes and daytrading bonus babies

You are kidding right?

hovers around the relegation mark of your incredibly competitive conference, my dullards are sitting pretty at first in my ridiculously easy one. Sadly, I only made a profit of $619,000 this past week. This 40% player's association robbery is killing a first division guy like me!

Which exactly proves my point. In a country with very very few users, it has been possible for you to be very competitive (even winning the championship) while not fielding a very strong team, and consequently you have been able to spend loads of money on your arena (instead of on players).
In a country with more than 100x more users, this has obviously been much much more difficult, especially for teams that started in the lower divisions (like myself), and not directly in the highest division (like yourself).
The fact that you continue to make a huge profit every week only further proves that either these changes were made when the situation was already beyond the point of no return (which has been suggested by the BBs), or that they simply are not very effective. Either way, it is clear that they have been MUCH more penalizing in some situations (for example Italy), that by the way did not cause the problem, than in others (for example in countries with less users).
Which is actually perfectly natural if you think about it, since it's obvious that if you apply the same kind of modification to vastly different situations, the result is not going to be the same.

The best teams in the best divisions should, theoretically, be fairly equal in terms of competition,no?
At the moment there are teams which have spent all their $$$ on players and now have to showcase those players in tiny bandboxes. There are other teams that have had the luxury of a smaller talent pool to compete in thus enabling them to build arenas that will entice stars to come and play. While you now must increase your building to survive, I can reap the benefits of building at the expense of on-the-floor talent by saving my pennies and buying players along the lines of your talent. In two or three seasons perhaps our teams will be more similar talent-wise, which is what, I believe, the BB's are trying to accomplish. The difference is that the price of a bleacher is the same today as it was three seasons ago, while the price of a player such as Ye Faming has risen substantially. It is my guess that by the time your arena reaches the capacity of the Gachai Municipal Buffalo Rodeo Arena, my payroll will be just slightly less than yours.

I believe we started playing around the same time. It was your choice to rise through the divisions by buying stars with no regard to the financial future of your franchise. Had you really had a long term program and planned to improve both team and arena equally, you wouldn't be in the predicament you are now. You were short-sighted in the beginning. I wasn't. I was lucky to be in a small country, but I would have stuck to my plan of equal investment in players and seats had I been allowed to play in the USA where I wanted to play and where I am from originally. It would have taken more seasons to advance but that is what long-term planning means, paying your dues.

PS- I made 600k+ because I had two home games, a cup game , and transferred one player, so the profits aren't as huge as I might have led you to believe.

The best teams in the best divisions should, theoretically, be fairly equal in terms of competition,no?

this is the key point
you and other managers from small countries had a big advantage before the changes because you build a huge arena and be sure you'd fill it
in more competitive nations attendance was way lower because after every loss there was a huge drop

the BBs announced a change in the way the attendance is calculated, i think it's too early to say if it's working well but i hope it does because the way it was before wasn't right

You can fill 19k sits, i can't 10k sits, cuz my division is more competitive then your!
If 10k builiding is big for me, i can't increase, it's wast money!
My English is so bad... sorry

The best teams in the best divisions should, theoretically, be fairly equal in terms of competition,no?

I don't know because I'm not sure I understand your interpretation of "best teams" and "best divisions".

At the moment there are teams which have spent all their $$$ on players and now have to showcase those players in tiny bandboxes. There are other teams that have had the luxury of a smaller talent pool to compete in thus enabling them to build arenas that will entice stars to come and play.

LOL!!! Are you kidding me? In case you haven't noticed, this isn't the NBA where nobody wants to play in Canada or everyone wants to play in New York.

While you now must increase your building to survive

Wrong.

, I can reap the benefits of building at the expense of on-the-floor talent by saving my pennies and buying players along the lines of your talent.

What you should have said was: "I can reap the benefits of playing against non-existant competition and winning (and filling your stadium) with a team that would struggle in 3rd division in Italy or Spain."

I believe we started playing around the same time. It was your choice to rise through the divisions by buying stars with no regard to the financial future of your franchise.

Wrond again.
It was my choice to field a competitive team that enabled me not to linger in IV division (where I started, unlike others who had the benefit of starting in first division) and at the same time have an extremely healthy economy.
When the rules changed (with 2 weeks noticed), my economy shifted from extremely healthy to adequate, but the fact remains that you are faulting me for a situation which I did not cause.

Had you really had a long term program and planned to improve both team and arena equally

I did.

, you wouldn't be in the predicament you are now. You were short-sighted in the beginning. I wasn't.

Wrong.

I was lucky to be in a small country

There you go...now you get the picture.

, but I would have stuck to my plan of equal investment in players and seats had I been allowed to play in the USA where I wanted to play and where I am from originally. It would have taken more seasons to advance but that is what long-term planning means, paying your dues.

Yes, and you would have had a completely empty arena because with the team you are lining up now, there is no way you would have been able to fill it with a .500 record (and I'm being optimistic).

PS- I made 600k+ because I had two home games, a cup game , and transferred one player, so the profits aren't as huge as I might have led you to believe.

You apparently are beginning to understand that you are actually making my point for me. ;)

I stand corrected.

You have made your points and I feel they are all valid. Except for the one about NBA players wanting to play in New York. That hasn't been the case since last century.

You fail to accept even the remote possibility that you perhaps should have paid a bit more attention to your arena, so there is nothing more to be done about that.

I wouldn't have had the team I am lining up now because if I hadn't been selling out my arena I would have been looking for players capable of selling it out.