BuzzerBeater Forums

Done deal. Honestly, I don't value the opinion of people attacking others, especially those making a fool of themselves being factually wrong and snide at the same time, much at all either!


Last edited by Lemonshine at 4/14/2015 9:16:01 AM

Bravo. So please go and ask that someone has a look at the free agency thresholds before it's too late. Or do you want to wait another year or two so that the people, who started training in the last couple of seasons, have fully trained players? Even lower potential players (say allstar) take around 4 seasons to train...

And the problem started when Utopia came into place, which... gosh, has it been four seasons already? And now we just had a significant loss of users there, so presumably the demand pressure will be alleviated. Now, of course, if people still aren't training the players desirable on the market, those who have done so should continue to expect to receive quite a nice return for doing so, and those who haven't will have to expect to pay that price for them.

[quote[Yes and in this neverending thread I haven't seen you or pretty much anybody else proposing solutions. And the only realistic solutions are changing the FA market and/or changing training and/or changing the way taxes work. Unless, of course, you'd like to see the effects of the current economy in the next 4 seasons as the cash dries up to money sinks and taxes.

Between you and Mike Franks, the problem is that there is too much money and money drying up at the same time. Beautiful.

Incidentally, for a proposed solution, admittedly late in the thread, see the last paragraph of (268635.89)

It's a shame that you can actually realize the root of the problem and focus so much on things incidental to the problem.

I say no, too much cash chasing too few worthwhile players is the root of the problem.

Right, but you do realise the root of the problem. However, as an example, I have yet to see sale taxes mentioned anywhere as having to do with the root of the problem and the lack of supply, as you put it. I suppose it's the same way Germany had nothing to do with WW2 and Belov had nothing to do with the US being whopped in the Olympics by the Russians 40 years ago.

If you can explain why the tax structure exerts any significant negative reinforcement on the decision to train players, I'd be willing to consider the argument. I have to say I've lost count of the number of posts saying "I really would like to train players, but why spend four seasons to do so if I only get 97% of their slae price", but it's easily in the zeroes of posts.

The guy who spent time training his players matters just as much as you do. And robbing him to keep prices low for you is just as wrong as it would be robbing you to keep my team afloat.

I say no, too much cash chasing too few worthwhile players is the root of the problem.

Robbing? So the price set by the market is ok sometimes, but not other times? Wow that's convenient , isn't it!? So what's the difference between you crying because prices were too low yesterday and the people who cry because prices are too high today? None. The only difference is your personal idea of what the correct prices should be.

The robbing specifically was in regards to Mike Franks' posts about needing to extract money out of the economy.

Others, like me, observe that high inflation or deflation is generally not good for any economy, including this game's.

As long as prices rise or fall in line with demand, and the players have the ability to create the supply or not, the economy is at least fair. Different strategies are rewarded at different times, but in the end it's simple: you have a team, you have your sources of income and expenses, and figure out how to beat the other teams in your level and then the teams at the next level. And to the extent that you rely on external sources of player talent, you are responsible for coming up with the plan to be able to acquire them. Lobbying for increased FA, of course, is one avenue, though perhaps not the most reliable . . . ;)

I'd call it more inconvenient than illogical. ... playing sub par lineups ...

And the real life basketball league where that is necessary, where a guy doesn't get coached and trained at all unless he plays in the regular games, where the last two or three guys onthe end of the bench (who need training the most) don't get trained ... the real life basketball league where that happens ... is ...
...
...
...

*crickets*

I think I saw that team! Yeah, they were a local semi-pro team with a $3 million stadium, drawing ten thousand or more fans a game and kept the players they wanted from leaving for the NBA, because maybe in ten seasons they might be there themselves. But they weren't called the Crickets, they were the Fredricktown Fighting Fnords.

Realism is nice when possible, but game design should take precedence - and considering professional sports leagues are structured in a way so that it either structurally impossible for teams to move up (most NA sports leagues) or simply financially untenable (most European sports leagues), sometimes realism needs to take a back seat so that the game isn't entirely unfair to newer users.

Between you and Mike Franks, the problem is that there is too much money and money drying up at the same time. Beautiful.

Well it is in the eye of the beholder even when he's blind. The 2 views you're trying to associate are completely different and do not even aim at proving the same point. Inflation with constant revenues and taxes lead to a reduction in savings (cash accumulated by tanking teams for example). Now when they have less cash or that cash is worth a fraction of what it was worth before, then these people are either forced to change the way they play the game or quit. Increase in people quitting = bad business. Clearly the faster this happens the worse the result and the smoother the transition the better. "Hyperinflation" is a term that points more to the "too fast" end of the range.

If you can explain why the tax structure exerts any significant negative reinforcement on the decision to train players, I'd be willing to consider the argument. I have to say I've lost count of the number of posts saying "I really would like to train players, but why spend four seasons to do so if I only get 97% of their slae price", but it's easily in the zeroes of posts.

I buy a player today, if I need to make back at least 80% of the money I need to wait a month or 2 depending on how many players I've sold before. For each purchase, you're making reselling the purchased player less economically viable for a period of time. So if people take longer to relist players they bought, there are less players on the market. The number of players in the game does not change, the number of players on the transfer list however does and this affects price formation. Fewer players on the market means the market becomes more opaque and that given a certain skillset it is harder to establish a fair market price because fewer transactions occur. People will bid up their own estimate of the value of a player, but with fewer comparables and with meaningless estimates provided by the game it is harder to do this properly.

It also means that managers are pushed out of their correct segment of the market, because if the overall talent in the game (i.e. the average TSP) increases or decreases players are not as easily redistributed between different levels, an argument that should be so close to your sensibility since you're a staunch supporter of the "worse potential trainees/worse players are ideal to lower level divisions" philosophy.

As long as prices rise or fall in line with demand, and the players have the ability to create the supply or not, the economy is at least fair.

Yes and if you expect people to be ok with waiting a couple of years to overhaul their strategy I think you're deluding yourself about the effect that the length of the adjustment will have (for example on managers quitting the game). Which is why inflation and deflation in the game is a problem given that revenues are capped.

Different strategies are rewarded at different times, but in the end it's simple: you have a team, you have your sources of income and expenses, and figure out how to beat the other teams in your level and then the teams at the next level.

I don't think anybody is disputing that at some point some kind of equilibrium will be found. Some people do wonder if it is worth to let it go unchecked and accept the possible consequences (mainly in terms of users retention).

Last edited by Lemonshine at 4/14/2015 10:14:22 AM

If you can explain why the tax structure exerts any significant negative reinforcement on the decision to train players, I'd be willing to consider the argument. I have to say I've lost count of the number of posts saying "I really would like to train players, but why spend four seasons to do so if I only get 97% of their slae price", but it's easily in the zeroes of posts.

I buy a player today, if I need to make back at least 80% of the money I need to wait a month or 2 depending on how many players I've sold before. For each purchase, you're making reselling the purchased player less economically viable for a period of time. So if people take longer to relist players they bought, there are less players on the market. The number of players in the game does not change, the number of players on the transfer list however does and this affects price formation. Fewer players on the market means the market becomes more opaque and that given a certain skillset it is harder to establish a fair market price because fewer transactions occur. People will bid up their own estimate of the value of a player, but with fewer comparables and with meaningless estimates provided by the game it is harder to do this properly.

You know, although I of course will point out that your response had nothing to do specifically with negative reinforcement on the decision to train players, nonetheless it's an interesting thought. There's also a corresponding counter-point that, since this seems to be specifically targeted to people who intentionally are buying players with the goal of selling them quickly, it may very well mean that the prospect of the tax might make them instead choose not to buy the player, leaving one less person bidding on him. Alternately, the manager may decide that the financial hit is worth the short-term benefit of having the player for that short period of time.

As long as prices rise or fall in line with demand, and the players have the ability to create the supply or not, the economy is at least fair.

Yes and if you expect people to be ok with waiting a couple of years to overhaul their strategy I think you're deluding yourself about the effect that the length of the adjustment will have (for example on managers quitting the game). Which is why inflation and deflation in the game is a problem given that revenues are capped.

That's kind of the pace the game moves at. BB-Charles preached about the value of SB, and then it was made more effective, and then the impact of it and JR in salary and in potential cost was slashed, but still if you look at the TL at the moment for IS at 15+, ID at 15+ or RB at 15+, you have over a hundred choices for each. Look for SB at 15+, there are two. Which is why I would certainly be in favor of revamping training, revamping the draft to include more skilled but low potential players who could be useful players immediately, stuff like that.

Different strategies are rewarded at different times, but in the end it's simple: you have a team, you have your sources of income and expenses, and figure out how to beat the other teams in your level and then the teams at the next level.

I don't think anybody is disputing that at some point some kind of equilibrium will be found. Some people do wonder if it is worth to let it go unchecked and accept the possible consequences (mainly in terms of users retention).

User retention is the ultimate red herring, though. Sure, if prices rise, some may leave for that. When prices fall, some may leave for that. If prices are fixed, some may leave for that. If users feel it's too hard to move up, they may leave. If they feel it's too hard to stay up, they may leave. If they feel it's not changing fast enough, they may leave. If it changes too much, they may leave. So all you can do is make the game the best and fairest it can be, and hope that the people will enjoy that enough to stay.

. You bring up some bs then hide like a cat ,stand behind what you bring forth please. You want to cap the damn market macroeconomic deal with global scale not direct market you do know this right. , Capping someone saving is the same as the capping the market , Theres 3 forms of income on BB, why are trying to cap what someone can have in income for all 3 forms.? Only areana is not directed to the market which the biggest form of income on BB.

Lebron James can make what he wants in free market up to 200 million, the ball club can take and save any amount they want in free market.. they cant make/pay 20% of what the club is worth. It seem you don't know basket ball well. You say you have business degree and a master in it but never what field. I don't know maybe over seas it a bit different. But don't open your mouth on we do things in Usa for sports, you don't know. All money paid to the player and team is 100% Gureenteed in the Nba basketball. all 100% the team can spend and save what ever they want they have no cap in saving . Anything over the limit goes to the financial year as penalty 1st and a recoup(+).

League salary cap is there because they don't want to burden the other teams to carry the weight of another team pay roll, so the Nba league stay afloat. All team help pay each other pay roll and can by sell, trade player to do so . We don't do any of this on BB so it not needed. There already a tax exempt player cap.

Your telling me what capping what someone can having the bank account is, then give a penalty for having to much money they have already earned.. Its a form communism, why do think people go to private banks now and the cayman islands?? . Free market has no limitation, thats why it call "free market", equal business for all.

To sit here and say everyone should have same amount of money saved is very absurd. To put a limit on what you can save is outlandish. To sit here and discuss this with you and you bring no facts to the table to support your points of view beyond defensive rebuttal. Is a waste of my time and show you don't know the hell your talking about.!!.Im sorry

I'll say get off your jealousy of others and go make some money in your saving account. Its not hard to do on BB.

I think you may need to renew it that master degree in business . It would be the wise thing to do, because your telling me, you would want a cap on your own saving to plan to ahead in you own buisneess? what foolish way of thinking for a company. The more money you have on hand (saved) the more moves you can make in business the bigger avenues you can aquire in most cases.. You know this right. Inflation cost don't care about your business, how are you going to deal a with inflation with a capped saving also with penalty for having to much to fight it.. You just killed your business!!

Last edited by Mr. Glass at 4/14/2015 11:56:41 AM

I get what you are saying now about it being illogical compared to real life, but if you were allowed to train anyone in any skill at any time, that would just be too easy.

Don't buy the brainwashing from BB that those two extremes -- totally illogical or totally without challenge -- are the only choices. That would be totally false. That's part of what pisses me off, how conveniently the movers and shakers dismiss reforming training -- "oh, so you want it to be totally easy" -- that's BS. That's lazy. That's not doing their job. Don't buy it -- training can be made logical and still have challenges, logical challenges.

Last edited by Mike Franks at 4/14/2015 12:46:37 PM

Between you and Mike Franks, the problem is that there is too much money and money drying up at the same time. Beautiful.

No, to anyone who reads, I was talking about too much cash in the economy and Lemon thinks taxes are too burdensome. Two different animals. But if you still need to mock instead of discuss, go right ahead. (Edited to say that I see Lemonshine already caught and addressed the fallacy in your post).

Incidentally, for a proposed solution, admittedly late in the thread, see the last paragraph of (268635.89)

Someone could start mocking you when everything you propose is training magically curing all ills ... six or eight seasons from now, when users have dropped another 50%.

Here's another example of crystal clear thought, or is it just more mocking, turning "... Mike Franks' posts about needing to extract money out of the economy" into ... drum roll please ... ROBBING! C'mon, hrudey, anyone can do better than that.

The mantra -- training cures all ills, you just have to wait six or eight sesons to see the fruits of your labor -- is getting pretty threadbare.

Last edited by Mike Franks at 4/14/2015 12:36:27 PM

Well, I learned something this morning ... one basketball per person per day. Sorry, Lemonshine, I would have given three or four of your posts a basketball.

User retention is the ultimate red herring, though. Sure, if prices rise, some may leave for that. When prices fall, some may leave for that. If prices are fixed, some may leave for that. If users feel it's too hard to move up, they may leave. If they feel it's too hard to stay up, they may leave. If they feel it's not changing fast enough, they may leave. If it changes too much, they may leave. So all you can do is make the game the best and fairest it can be, and hope that the people will enjoy that enough to stay.

It's not too high or too low it's the rate at which they have changed and that nothing has been done to reduce the impact of such a sudden change of environment.

You see red herrings everywhere and that's your ultimate argument that reduces everything into indistinct noise. The truth however is that people feel the current state is problematic enough to complain about prices. Could you say there were threads like this one, complaining because prices were too low, before Utopia came about? Considering that there were more users back then, you may draw your own conclusions about why threads complaining about inflation/deflation, prices etc etc keep coming out now, but didn't back then.

Ultimately you seem to be the one dismissing the problem as a non-issue, while all the open complaining from multiple people in multiple threads points to a widespread disappointment with the current situation.

Look, I bought supporter I may delight myself in starting polls. I think I will enjoy that. And I think I will start with:
a) You believe today's prices are too high
b) You believe today's prices are too low
c) You believe they are about right
d) I couldn't care less about prices, I'm outta here anyways. bye

I'd call it more inconvenient than illogical. ... playing sub par lineups ...

And the real life basketball league where that is necessary, where a guy doesn't get coached and trained at all unless he plays in the regular games, where the last two or three guys onthe end of the bench (who need training the most) don't get trained ... the real life basketball league where that happens ... is ...
...
...
...

*crickets*

... sometimes realism needs to take a back seat so that the game isn't entirely unfair to newer users.

Great response, well thought out, succinct, a real knee-slapper ... and completely missing the point. Realism and logical thought are not at opposite ends of the spectrum. If illogic is now being proposed to attract or retain newer users, this game is in more trouble than I thought.