BuzzerBeater Forums

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.

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.

Even hrudey sees that your argument, though true, applies to day traders. The taxes are not so great that they impose burdensome restrictions on basketball managers. And I am not in the camp that thinks day-trading was ever good for the game.

In fact, maybe your argument could be scrutinized more closely with an eye toward seeing if it gives a clue as to another ill effect of day trading.

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.

Yes, and it is that dismissive attitude not only from him but pretty much across the board from the powers that be that will result in players leaving the site faster than anything else. I don't mind when someone disagrees with me -- how else are we going to learn? But to go to such lengths to preserve a flawed status quo as to dismiss the problem, and worse yet to dismiss those who are trying to shine light on the problem, will lose customers who expect the game to be improved where it needs it.

Yes, that is what I said, too. They are very different things, but the continuum between them is a grey area, as Balev said. Hoarding hurts your team, and when the hoarded millions flood back into the game it hurts the game. You would do better to try to understand Knecht than to pick a fight with him. ~ mike franks


Again it does not, flooding money into the economy only stimulates the economy the buyer dictate price., If you feel there's to much money in the economy then I can agree with that because this is a bidding economy.. I'll say teams are making more than they every made on BB in this economy as bad a sit is. They're making more than, they ever made.

The players quality is not as good, but then again its about training lol( I had chuckle saying that line) , they are selling you players to train more than player ready to win. Which is the big issues.

Last edited by Mr. Glass at 4/14/2015 2:02:29 PM

Well, not really. Check this out:
http://www.buzzerbeater.com/team/30851/transferhistory.as...

Now tell me if you don't see any player bought and sold in the span of 6-8 weeks. Would you say hrudey is a daytrader?

People buy and sell for various reasons, maybe they see a better player on the market and they need the cash to compete in the bidding. This is what I meant by "players are not as easily redistributed between different levels".

Of course the tax hits daytraders the most, however it equally hits everybody else who for any reasons would like to make a roster adjustment. The tax applies to everyone irrespective of whether you bought 1 player or 100 players in the last 14 weeks. You could make the argument that the effect is not large, but the only way to know for sure would be to check the average period for which players had been on a team before and after the change. I would just like to point out that in addition to most daytrading being wiped out, even a single week increase in the average time managers hold on to their players would have an impact on the number of players on the market (I agree that there additional reasons why this could happen).

I agree with hrudey that people might be more careful with their money. This however may also mean that they splash more money on fewer players.

Last edited by Lemonshine at 4/14/2015 1:11:41 PM

It also mean more team will have more money in saving. Which some want to take away from them,

I think some managers need to chill. and calm down with all the tax and hinders , Teams need flex-ability ,no business is straight and narrow.

Last edited by Mr. Glass at 4/14/2015 1:33:39 PM

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.

Six or eight seasons? Are we suffering from hyper-inflation of training times now too?

But, yes, training is the core of the solution, as every single player in the game that is pertinent to this thread has to be trained to get to that level by someone. If you don't want to do it, that's fine. If too many people don't want to do it, that's fine - and then they'll have to just pay more for those players.