BuzzerBeater Forums

In addition to the relegation issues that other people have brought up, your proposal would still have a top league where managers from different countries would have to compete with each other. There have already been a couple of managers from these countries stating that this is unacceptable. How do you solve this?

I hope that is a serious question. You -- Ryan and Marin -- solve it by considering the matter from the point of view of what is best for BB. Managers who are speaking from their own personal biases are not speaking from that point of view, they are merely giving you their own personal bias. I can understand you would wish to hear from all managers (not just micro-managers, by the way) and a public display of such an interest may go a long way toward winning support for changes you might make. But I also know that "inmates running the asylum" is widely considered an inefficient way to run a program.

As a practical matter, a reshuffle that breaks up countries and puts teams into worlds based on a measure such as World Rank, and without regard to nationality, creates full worlds with fair competition and a balanced budget. Full worlds, fair competition and a balanced budet is a heckuva lot better result than any of the proposals I have seen to merely crush micro-nations together.

In addition to the relegation issues that other people have brought up, your proposal would still have a top league where managers from different countries would have to compete with each other. There have already been a couple of managers from these countries stating that this is unacceptable. How do you solve this?

Well, your original plan was to simply combine all three nations. So this would cut down that problem to 16 teams only. Other 100+ teams would still be playing with their countrymen.

Also, I believe it's likely that top teams care less about nationality issues, than more casual managers. I mean if you like the game, and you're active on forums, you're more likely to enjoy the challenge of playing in the stronger league. I'm taking myself as an example. I'm very active on this game, and have no intention of quitting, if this merger happens. Now if you lump all three countries together, I'm pretty sure a lot of more casual managers will quit.

As for promotion/relegation, do you think it would be a problem?

Div I relegation: as usual
Div II promotion: as usual
Div II relegation: as usual

Div III promotion: depends on the number of slots in Divs II, but aren't there systems for Utopian IV to III promotion, and also bot promotion who address the same issue already?

We welcome the opinion of everyone

Evidently some don't. Nowhere does it say the BBs are not interested in the opinions of those not in micro nations.

If you're not a manager from a micro-nation, please don't attempt to speak on the behalf of those that are.

They should have added that if you are from a micro nation please don't attempt to bully (an odd word for the small attacking the large but there you go) those from other nations into not speaking on this subject at all.

I think you're misrepresenting me more than a bit. I'm absolutely willing to be engaged with those who will discuss openly, and consider the *some* micro nation managers would like to retain some semblance of nation. In some fashion. What I'll be dismissive about is people stating (for the most part, from significantly larger nations) "You MUST do this (merge)". And just as you have the right to post, I have the right to form an opinion - and voice it.

Thus, I would argue the BBs were wrong to say they were most concerned with the opinions of those in micros, but as I already said, they didn't say macros, mediumos, belowaveragos and anyone else and their dog couldn't express their opinions. Just that it would carry less weight.

And I don't believe that anyone here has said that those you describe couldn't express said opinions.

I also think those people who are attempting to hold BB hostage by saying they'll quit if their beloved country is removed from BB should really get a grip. (I realise that's not you malice, I'm digressing)Its not like they're threatening to not let you play any more. And I've already said I wouldn't object if Trainerman's advice was followed and larger nations than micros (like mine) were also merged.

It is a reality tho'. I agree - attempting to ransom their involvement isn't exactly helping anyone... but I *DO* think that a lot of smaller-nation-users will bail if forced into this. It does appear the BBs are interested in trying to make this as positive as possible - I've never seen this level of discussion about a proposed change... but then I don't think there's ever been a change this large tabled before.

I'll say again, (because I can) that we should really be looking towards having similar sized leagues (Nations, Regions or whatever) so that we can all play in similar situations. In line with Trainerman's (and others') proposals.

I think once that happens, once we go the world Utopian route, then it's all becoming a bit too cookie cutter, too vanilla. I believe that the existence of many different world experiences is one of the things that makes BB... well... BB.

In addition to the relegation issues that other people have brought up, your proposal would still have a top league where managers from different countries would have to compete with each other. There have already been a couple of managers from these countries stating that this is unacceptable. How do you solve this?

When faced with the reality that appears before us (that a merge of some fashion is inevitable - and that's the way it appears at the moment), then this suggestion (I/trainerman together made a similar suggestion a few pages back) is more palateable than a flat merge. Nations are still maintained. Identity remains. You're just competing against more teams in a regional engagement.

In addition to the relegation issues that other people have brought up, your proposal would still have a top league where managers from different countries would have to compete with each other. There have already been a couple of managers from these countries stating that this is unacceptable. How do you solve this?

I hope that is a serious question. You -- Ryan and Marin -- solve it by considering the matter from the point of view of what is best for BB. Managers who are speaking from their own personal biases are not speaking from that point of view, they are merely giving you their own personal bias. I can understand you would wish to hear from all managers (not just micro-managers, by the way) and a public display of such an interest may go a long way toward winning support for changes you might make. But I also know that "inmates running the asylum" is widely considered an inefficient way to run a program.

You do realise that from the other side of the fence, this could be used to describe managers who are pushing the Borg collective scenario...

I’ve read through a good portion of the main thread over the past week or so and here’s how I would approach things. This is somewhat building off of the conversation I saw between Trainerman and Malice yesturday.

I’m going to use Asia as an example but you could take a similar approach to the other regions.

For this example, let’s assume the merging nations are (number of users): Japan (25), South Korea (3), Vietnam (6), Thailand (13), Indonesia (44), Malaysia (35), Singapore (44) and New Zealand (18).

The first season the top two teams from each country based on prior season performance are promoted to the new merged D1. Below that there is one D2 in each nation and then 4 D3, etc. If you have less than 8 countries then the larger countries get a third team to start, etc. If you give everyone notice of what will happen in advance they can plan their teams accordingly to try to earn one of the spots to the combined D1.

At the end of the season since there are 8 nations the bottom 8 non-playoff teams have to play a relegation/promotion 3 game series against one of the D2 league winners at a neutral location. The lowest performing D1 team based on record in the D1 league would play against the highest WR from the D2 winners, and so on. Winners would promote/remain in D1, losers would relegate down. If the league has less nations, say 5, then only the bottom 5 D1 teams would have to play a relegation series. No more than 8 nations can be in a merged league.

This means that after the first season there would be a chance that a nation has no one in the top league. Let’s use South Korea as an example since they only have 3 teams. Their top 2 teams are put into D1 the first season. They might both be weaker teams (I haven’t looked and don’t know so don’t troll me on this) and end up in the bottom 8 and they might both lose in the relegation series. At the same time, their top D2 team who gets a chance to play for promotion might also lose. Then the next season South Korea has no one in the top league. That should be OK, if they aren’t strong enough then that’s the way it goes. Their top team will always get a chance to join the D1 league each season.

Then, what happens if it’s a larger nation like Singapore that has both team s relegating and no one promoting. How do we balance their D2 to 16 teams? To solve this I think you run D2 relegation similar to Utopia where you have 6 or more teams subject to relegation each season and a balancing process to make it work.

Lastly, related to Buzzerbeater’s Best, a merger will significantly reduce the number of teams invited to B3 each season and it will be the micro-nation teams that are impacted. I would propose to increase the B3 invitations to include both the winner and the runner-up from each D1 and tournament. This will reduce the amount of lost spots for the micro-nation teams and will also open up more spots for the macro-nations who have many deserving teams. Also, I would propose that any team making the final 32 be automatically invited back to B3 for the next season.

This may not be perfect but I think it’s close to a good solution. I welcome anyone to comment or build on this.

you can decrease number of groups in DIVs ...
16 teams in DIV 1
16 teams in DIV 2 in one group
and ect ...
then with 48 teams in a country , we will have 3 active DIVs

the number of promoted teams of each group can be 4 teams ...

the last DIV will be DIV 5 ... 5x16=80 ... then a country with 80 teams will have 5 active DIVs

if the number off users further of 80 users , add a new group at DIV 5 ...

I describe my idea with a simulation :

0-80 users : 1 Div 1 , 1 Div 2 , 1 Div 3 , 1 Div 4 , 1 Div 5
81-96 users : 1 Div 1 , 1 Div 2 , 1 Div 3 , 1 Div 4 , 2 Div 5
97-144 users : 1 Div 1 , 1 Div 2 , 1 Div 3 , 2 Div 4 , 4 Div 5
145-256 users : 1 Div 1 , 1 Div 2 , 2 Div 3 , 4 Div 4 , 8 Div 5
257-496 users : 1 Div 1 , 2 Div 2 , 4 Div 3 , 8 Div 4 , 16 Div 5
497-976 users : 1 Div 1 , 4 Div 2 , 8 Div 3 , 16 Div 4 , 32 Div 5
977-1776 users : 1 Div 1 , 4 Div 2 , 16 Div 3 , 32 Div 4 , 64 Div 5
1777-3408 users : 1 Div 1 , 4 Div 2 , 16 Div 3 , 64 Div 4 , 128 Div 5
3409-5648 users : 1 Div 1 , 4 Div 2 , 16 Div 3 , 64 Div 4 , 256 Div 5

you can expand this formula to 6 or 7 Div ...

another Necessary Act is increase the income for lower Divs and Homogenization incomes for all off Divs or decrease the Difference between them ...

with this change , Iran with 63 user will has 4 active Divs and don't need too merge ...

sorry for bad English

Last edited by Misagh at 4/24/2016 5:55:23 AM