BuzzerBeater Forums

Whether you implement it as a soft or a hard cap is irrelevant, since it will likely be calibrated to work the same way. Whether you have a hard cap at 500, or a soft cap in which lowering the price to 0 will get you to ~500 is irrelevant.

As a matter of fact, I like the hard cap better, because it has a solid explanation behind it. The problem is that fan behavior and ticket prices are not calibrated to accommodate for this cap: 500 courtside spectators can be attracted with close to maximum ticket prices, which I think is a problem (for comparison, for 50 luxury box spectators you have to lower the prices to what, half?).

So whichever way you go, something will have to get recalibrated in addition to the cap.

Of the roughly 100 or so (according to your first post) people that this issue affects, I have seen only a few who are so upset about it. I have no problem with it. If people take a look at NBA arenas, they will see that they of them are fairly similar in their size and seat distribution- (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_National_Basketball_...).
I think there are some people who just want to complain about things, whether they are major or minor. I spend quite a bit of time on this site, my team is fairly competitive, and I try to participate in all facets of the game (except the draft). This change made me say, "hmmm, bummer. okay." And that was it. SO the arena has a cap on it. Fine. Those who tell you that it is ruining their "long-term" plans are misleading themselves. I also don't buy the timing complaint. 6 weeks is enough time to deal with any change. It might be a bumpy road for some ( although I don't see how since any team with 500+ courtside seats most likely has assets of at least 15 million dollars and more like 25 in these days of TL inflation ) but with the reduction of courtside seats and an increase in prices for both courtside and luxury box ticket prices, the majority of those 100 owners will roughly break even.
My responses to your questions:

1) soft cap
2) tomorrow.
3) the more freedom the builder has, the better.

Of the roughly 100 or so (according to your first post) people that this issue affects, I have seen only a few who are so upset about it.

I could also say that I have only seen one person out of the 100 who fully supports it, too.

Ok, sure, I am with you it is not a big deal and that my original post was an overreaction. I'm still trying to figure out why it is such a hurry to implement this, when it has been confirmed that the only rationale is to make the game more realistic?

I don't know the answer to that, but it might be so that the new minigames which you are not in favor of (but which I think will be okay) can be introduced at the all-star break. Or maybe they are trying to get it done now because there are 1000 teams on the verge of being able to increase their arenas and if they wait for a season or two, the headache will be 10 times what it is now.

when it has been confirmed that the only rationale is to make the game more realistic?

If realism is the main issue, it seems that a fair (enough) compromise would be to raise the upper limit for what you can charge for "courtside" seats. This way the economic impact can remain relatively unchanged while the unrealistic image of 2,000 courtside seats is removed.

I agree with this. In this, the 11th season of the Buzzerbeater universe, ticket prices have never risen. I wish I could get a ticket to a Warriors game for what it cost in 1998!

Whether you implement it as a soft or a hard cap is irrelevant, since it will likely be calibrated to work the same way. Whether you have a hard cap at 500, or a soft cap in which lowering the price to 0 will get you to ~500 is irrelevant.

As a matter of fact, I like the hard cap better, because it has a solid explanation behind it. The problem is that fan behavior and ticket prices are not calibrated to accommodate for this cap: 500 courtside spectators can be attracted with close to maximum ticket prices, which I think is a problem (for comparison, for 50 luxury box spectators you have to lower the prices to what, half?).

So whichever way you go, something will have to get recalibrated in addition to the cap.

i think the problem that the wole attendance system wasn't fit to get 20000 visitors, it was fit to let in 90-120k, through the raise of prices during the reduction the total amount without cap could be even higher^^ The first approach of letting the arena but reducing the total visitors would be still the best in my eyes, you had individual arenas, the necessary of building big was reduced.

The proble with caps, is in my eyes why not just call the categories "seats" delete the other three, because in the end we already end up in a standard arena.

i know at elast then who against it, and let me do the lobbysm. And the fully supporting guys you are number 2.

honestly i don't like much change at least when it was unnecessary like you said,maybe it is a bit more realsism but this game will stay arcade independent for the quesition about the arena. Player development is incredible fast(would you reduce this in term of realism, i hope not?), we don't pay taxes and have to fight with bancrupt sponsors, other sprong sports team in the area etc.

Especially the arena is running nowadays, in a arcade function normally if you upgrade a arena, you had to build a totally new one so if you don't change this is will be unrealistik indepent from the contribution.

It's definitely a fair point that announcing this while arena sizes cannot be changed anymore is a problem. One of our near-future plans was to allow you to reduce the size of the arena from construction but to give less than a 100% refund for seats (i.e., you'd get the cost of materials back but not the cost of labor).

This makes totally sense, but at least for new changes you should give the victim are chanche to react, their are already punished. Maybe you could let redesign the users their distribution, with your caps and the upper limit of the investet money in the old one - this would even be more realstic, when you move to a new arena this was a fast solution but maybe a working one ... To get further to step too, because if you make it with a time period, you had to wait some season before the last deconstrution of your last changed are finished.

About 1)
it's equal the effect is pretty the same in the end, the soft cap is maybe a bit more sympathic. But with cap and maximum distirbution, why we need different areas still, we go further to abstract "seats". But i would say hard, because you will give a good guideline with it.

3.) I think this would be too confusing, if you sell bleachers as vip lounge because you could label them so, and if it just go down - so you got a VIP place but you put 5 people in who pay the cheapest amount. Also this looks even more like we are going to the "standard" arena.

It's something we would have done at the same time as the other attendance formula changes if we had realized it would be a problem.

For me it always was a logical reaction to it, when this was proposed ... I said it also, and you had the data to calculate if i am right ;)(and i was not the only one) And those calculation ain't that hard, you know the number of maximum fans but get surprised how big the arenas becomes even in the first step(and the prices for the cheaop categories was still high), so why not running some simulations before not let them do from users.

I'm not sure what you mean. Maybe you meant you know 10 (then?) who are against it. I have 1000 courtside seats, why would I fully support it? The difference is that I can understand the rationale behind the move and can see how, if the BBs see it as a problem, they want to stop while there are 100 arenas with more than 500 courtside seats and not 1000.
I also see the bigger picture which is that the revenue streams must not be allowed to grow without limits or there would be teams with payrolls of 2 million dollars playing in the Silverdome (80000 seat arena in Detroit) and new teams would never have a chance to compete. Capping the arena makes a lot of sense for the long run of Buzzerbeater, so that eventually there will be an equilibrium, where top teams will be on roughly equal footing financially.

So you complain because you are seeing only short term and worried only about your own interests while the BBs are acting long term and with the interests of the entire community in mind.