BuzzerBeater Forums

Suggestions > Staff bidding: Take off the training wheels

Staff bidding: Take off the training wheels

Set priority
Show messages by
This Post:
00
118872.1
Date: 11/15/2009 12:01:13 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
3737
The restriction on one bid per staff member type is unnecessary, IMO. Sometimes I absolutely want to do this, and fully accept the risk of hiring and then replacing a staff member in very short order.

Maybe leave this as a default preference if the BBs feel strongly about it? Or just add a warning step if you try to place a second bid, instead of the current rejection?

This Post:
00
118872.2 in reply to 118872.1
Date: 11/15/2009 12:13:34 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
154154
Sounds like a good suggestion.

This Post:
00
118872.3 in reply to 118872.1
Date: 11/16/2009 11:43:40 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
2020
The restriction on one bid per staff member type is unnecessary, IMO. Sometimes I absolutely want to do this, and fully accept the risk of hiring and then replacing a staff member in very short order.

Maybe leave this as a default preference if the BBs feel strongly about it? Or just add a warning step if you try to place a second bid, instead of the current rejection?
From a team-owner's point of view that might sound good, but you do not give any trainer false expectations without hurting his feelings, from a human point of view? I like fair play better than acting like a selfish "me and mine only!"-leader.

This Post:
00
118872.4 in reply to 118872.3
Date: 11/16/2009 12:26:48 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
5050
And this would be pretty unrealistic, too.

This Post:
00
118872.5 in reply to 118872.3
Date: 11/16/2009 2:33:09 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
3737
The restriction on one bid per staff member type is unnecessary, IMO. Sometimes I absolutely want to do this, and fully accept the risk of hiring and then replacing a staff member in very short order.

Maybe leave this as a default preference if the BBs feel strongly about it? Or just add a warning step if you try to place a second bid, instead of the current rejection?
From a team-owner's point of view that might sound good, but you do not give any trainer false expectations without hurting his feelings, from a human point of view? I like fair play better than acting like a selfish "me and mine only!"-leader.


I assume you support an outright ban on daytrading as well for the same reasons?

This Post:
00
118872.6 in reply to 118872.5
Date: 11/16/2009 2:42:52 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
2020
I assume you support an outright ban on daytrading as well for the same reasons?
This I do not understand. Is this something I said, and did not understand what i said?

From: CrazyEye

This Post:
00
118872.7 in reply to 118872.6
Date: 11/16/2009 2:47:15 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
959959
i think he mean, that players don't like to get expectations to play in a team and get instantly selled again.

This Post:
00
118872.8 in reply to 118872.7
Date: 11/16/2009 3:27:08 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
3737
i think he mean, that players don't like to get expectations to play in a team and get instantly selled again.


Yes, basically, if you think that the hurt feelings of the simulated staff should be a consideration, do you also apply that consideration to the buying and selling of players?

Myself, I don't think this aspect is worth considering. And, in fact, it's irrelevant to this suggestion. You can hire and fire a staff member instantaneously right now.

This Post:
00
118872.9 in reply to 118872.8
Date: 11/16/2009 4:09:39 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
959959
Myself, I don't think this aspect is worth considering. And, in fact, it's irrelevant to this suggestion. You can hire and fire a staff member instantaneously right now.


and i am pretty sure, that some players hire and fire their PR before every game to get the small bonus especially in the PO.

This Post:
00
118872.10 in reply to 118872.8
Date: 11/16/2009 4:54:31 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
2020
- - Myself, I don't think this aspect is worth considering. And, in fact, it's irrelevant to this suggestion. You can hire and fire a staff member instantaneously right now.
Yes, I agree. This is virtual and has nothing to do with real life. But I don't like that every thing that should make this game easy to play, is just good and nothing but good.

This Post:
00
118872.11 in reply to 118872.10
Date: 11/17/2009 12:52:33 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
1515
From a team-owner's point of view that might sound good, but you do not give any trainer false expectations without hurting his feelings, from a human point of view? I like fair play better than acting like a selfish "me and mine only!"-leader
.

Actually this perfectly normal practice and is not only quite realistic but also very common. Contracts are offered regularly to multiple parties with the stipulation that when one is accepted the others are void. It is done every day, and selfishness plays no part in it.

I don't like that every thing that should make this game easy to play, is just good and nothing but good.


1. How does this make the game easy to play?

2. If this is not a good change then please give even one legitimate reason to consider it a bad one.