BuzzerBeater Forums

Pretty sure based on what exactly?

Inside players are training higher, but overall they have a lot of just 4 skills, while a guard needs a lot of 6 skills.

Based on the fact that I've seen $35,000+ wage all-stars train at normal speed.

The skill distribution (and therefore the recommended position) is irrelevant, and the potential cap is based solely on what the salary of a player would be, given his current skills. That much has been mentioned here numerous times by the BB team.

My opinion about these changes Charles:

I really think these changes will create the big deflation you were afraid of. They already are. It's like the president of the Central Bank making an announcement about changes on the interest rate, and that crashing the stock markets everywhere. Teams know now that they will have a harder time making money, so consequently they will be more reluctant to spend it on their purchases, and since the market works on auctions, this will directly influence the final prices and dramatically reduce them. That's as clear as water.

I don't know about your calculations, I saw that everybody have their own, but I know that my team won't make it with 40% less. And my salaries are actually pretty small (best paid player gets only 24k). But now I'm still trying to figure out how I will survive. So you can be sure the Devils won't be participating in any auctions any time soon. Many teams in that situation (or even just afraid of being in that situation) will cause the deflation.

Second problem, also mentioned before, people sitting in big piles of cash have a huge advantage now. And that does not contradict the deflation problem (as you suggested), because what will happen is that these people will simply be able to buy many players for much cheaper now. A guy with 7 million could buy a good player yesterday, now he can build a DI championship team.

1. You might consider changing top league income based on the size of the countries user base. For example, there is a disproportionate number of I clubs, because all the small countries have no II leagues and those teams have the potential to make huge income streams. If income was scaled according to user base size (not linearly, but maybe using a log function or something...that would reduce a lot of the teams making huge profits and creating run-away inflation.

Fresh team income (as opposed to income redistribution created by transfers) is formed by TV/merchandise money and arena income, which depends on arena size/fan base. Why is it necessary to tax people based on all sorts of side factors that have no direct relation to their source of income.

more thing , until which age will be the junior NT ..?
and if it's inclusive this age ..

still waiting for answer .. :)

Is the difference in income between I and II teams 15%? (40% reduction from top league, 25% reduction from II league teams through bonuses to players).

I suspect not. In which case it's still better to promote... which is good, I guess.

And you've also cut television money across the board (everyone now gets $35k per week, irrespective of league?). So top league teams lose out far more again. What about the top teams that don't hoard money? Those not in mature leagues with big arenas? I guess those countries will just have to suck it up and not be able to compete for however long it is until you decide to end the communist regime and "... the gate money will return to being 100% given to the clubs."

So, with 2 weeks to prepare, and my plan for next season out of the window, will you be reducing arena building prices for people to still be able to compete? At the moment it's all take, take, take, and a pitiful amount of time for us to adjust.

Any suggestions as to what I can do to keep afloat next season gratefully received. A solution to inflation is not to sudden make people poor and prevent them making money - that's when you get an unfun game and everyone leaves.

Or do we start playing BB-Trader?

EDIT - if you didn't get my tone, I'll clear it up for you: Changes suck (although I acknowledge you need to sort out inflation, but it appears you're trying to clear it up in just a few weeks), and I think you've been heavy-handed with the changes implemented.

Last edited by LA-rlinney2001 at 7/29/2008 3:33:07 PM

As a DII team I think the changes are simething that must happen.

But there's one thing I am not sure of.

Teams who get promoted this upcoming playoff to a higher devision will enjoy a money reward or not??

I was looking to promote to the EBBL this season after having a very good time of it. I was looking forward to being able to build up my stadium, save up some money for a big time star, the works. After these changes, I'm really not so sure I can afford it or want to afford it.

My arena turned over $197,000 tonight in my play-off game and can (under current prices) turn over a maximum of $240,000 if sold out. If I promote, I can't earn more than $144,000 from my arena compared to in the region of $150,000-180,000 if I stay put.

This puts my weekly income, before cup games, at a maximum of $179,000 in the top flight and from $185,000 in Div II, including the frankly pathetic $35,000 weekly TV money.

I'm wondering if it's worth it to promote. Unless the promotion cash bonus is sizeable - in the hundreds of thousands of dollars - I have no financial motivation to promote and it may be worth camping in my current division.

Now, if you tell me that from next season I'll be able to sell out a 10,500 seater every week in the top division with my current fanbase, I'll be partially mollified, and then exasperated since I'll have to add 3,000 seats just keep earning at my current rate in the EBBL. Yes, the revenue sharing will decrease over time, but next season will really hurt.

I changed my mind. A little bit.
(meh, post in BB-England after I ran through some figures).

I apreciate that BB tries to act asap when a pressing issue comes up,
BUT

I sure hope this is looked over more then a few times for the whole world.

I can only speak for Belgium, and maybe a few other teams which I saw buying very good players.
Most very good players I saw being bought where not only by division I teams. this means lower division teams can afford the best players in BB (and I don't mean the 10 best, but overall the better players on the TL) just as good as any division 1 team, maybe some even better.

If there is to much money comming in the game, and the free agents don't take enough out from teams rich enough to buy those, then I would think you should hit every division in the same way %-wise.
A div I team should be able to buy player which are unaccesible to divIII teams imo, and this clearly is not the case yet (maybe because the best players aren't that good yet). By hitting Div I hardest, Div I teams will not stay able to compete on the TL market to lower teams.

An other thing is that I had a long term vision by using my money solely on my stadion until I needed better players to be able to keep competing. If I see what teams will probably be in Div I in Belgium next year, I know I need a few new good players, however as it looks now, it would have been better that I already had bought 5 good players with my money, instead of spending it on my stadion, because my stadion will not get me the profit I was expecting and which would enable me to buy the players.
40% is a lot. it means that my stadion of 17500 (in 3 days) will get me the profits of a stadion of 10000 next year, which is less than what I started this season with, while the money I started the season with, was slightly higher then what I have now. So after a season I start with a smaller stadion, and less money, so basically I lost money this season instead of making a profit.
If BB cuts TV money to about 1/3 and our revenue by 40%, I'm positive Div I teams indeed will not make profit anymore, and will only be able to train their players, while lower divisions can train at the same speed, and add some extra profit they make from the games to end up with more money to spend on the better players. I might be wrong, and I hope I am.

It is possible that OLDER teams who are in Div I have a prety big fanbase (season ticket holders), and indeed make a lot of money, but then you should look into solving that, and not hit every DivI team around.

I am afraid in some countries (maybe not Belgium, maybe Belgium included) DivI teams will demote next season, or a few seasons afterwards, because they can't compete with DivII and DivIII teams, while actually putting the same effort, and playing with the same smartness into their play, and I can't imagine that is what BB wants. I think the lower division teams must get a chance to climb if they actually outsmart the other players, but a DivI team should also be able to stay put if his play isn't inferior to his rivals.

I know it must be tremedously difficult to solve this pressing issue in a timely and correct manner, and I trust BB's do the best they can to do this. All I can do is give my (maybe a little to spontaneous) reaction and thoughts on the matter.
If all things brought forward here are already thought about and form no problem I am a very happy person, if not I hope it might help somehow so it can still be looked at.

im waiting next 2 weeks and certainly more to see the real impact of this change,instead of thinking about the goal i see lkie it was said a real advantage for those who capitalize for seasons
,after a big change in training speed which has already made a loss of balance in skills and depth roster,
day trading tax which just brake a consequence of first point
now tax on divisions can compell somes teams to sell some players in future but not really break advantages we ll se

As I would like to think I played a small role in causing the "Törööö tax" (I really had no idea that I made $8.2 million this year), I think this solution may be too harsh on the middle and lower DI teams. Using economic theory, it is always best to follow the less intrusive manner - which in this case, may very well be to impose a graduated tax on profits. With the big concern being the large increase in money supply through excess income, it's clear incomes need to be reduced. However, the implementation of a flat tax is quite inequitable (though I suppose more equitable than a head tax). Targeting the big gainers will not stifle the lower and middle DI teams (nor dissuade lower divisions teams from wanting to promote), and teams like mine could put up with it for the short term. Otherwise, unless I experience an unexpected loss (or a tough draw like the Drunkers, Sculpins or KDB) early in the cup or BB3, these changes will not effect my team nearly as much as most of my competitors - assuming that the compensation for cup and BB3 games is comparable to last season.

Obviously, this would be much less advantageous for my team, but I would like to see the game continue to grow.