BuzzerBeater Forums

I never said I was. Simply stating that ive seen other teams plan, and successfully improve their team over the last 2-3 seasons, so im inclined to think this could continue. I never mentioned my team even once.

Neither do I

In English grammar, generic you or indefinite you is the use of the pronoun you to refer to an unspecified person

Last edited by Steve Karenn at 10/18/2010 10:56:15 AM

I think perhaps the point is trying to win every year and being able to successfully do that is much harder now, which does not seem like a bad thing. You might have to plan for a few seasons before you can make a successful championship run AND be able to continue forward without going bankrupt.

I dont see the dwindling prices as much of an issue, since it seems all prices are down. Sure your top guy wont net 8million for you anymore, but if he nets 5million and every other price is down, the relative value you gain should still be close to the same.

I also believe this scenario is good. When there is a certain cap on how much money you can make you create a competitive enviroment where every team can challenge the best one. It's just matter of time because top teams won't get any more better(they will but at a very slow pace and in equilibrium they simply won't because of salary restriction) and teams chasing them will get better really fast if prices are getting down.

Just think about the fixes prices for cup and promotion. If prices are going down the relative value of those prizes goes up.

Sure, there will be differences between competitive first divs and less competitive ones, but the situation is shared among all your other rivals. And again, sometime those teams will reach competitive salaries just like any other established first div.
The only ones who could really blame for this are B3 participants wich are a minority.

Last edited by Zero, the Magi. at 10/18/2010 12:53:08 PM

With the actual situation,you can't train bi-role because your player would not be good enough to face off your adversaries players,and with the actual stagnation has almost no value on the market,since better players haven't such a great value

The deflaction means that the only way you can do extra money is to find one of the few crazy rich man that remains of the market(and more often onlyt the owners of the super monsters have benefit from thes emoney),or you just to have a great luck in the draft

It's really frustating

Maybe he's trying to say its hard to succeed with a training-to-sell based model then it would be in an inflationary market, as compare to a training-for-keeps model. If you're training for other teams you won't get much return. If you're training your players for keeps to win and have a team built around that training you will see dividends in revenues derived from on-court success (promotion, arena).

If so, that's true. Though I don't think this is bad. If winning and promoting is the best way to make money over training-selling then that means more teams will focusing on competing. I'd much rather have a game were the best way to succeed is success on the court over success off of it.

For me it's hard to separate this issues from Hattrick, a game where it's easier to be financially successful by training and avoiding promotion. It's the single biggest reason I've given up on that game.

There should be some pain in order to create better well-rounded players with better performance/salary ratio than only primary skills players.

If you feel you are not getting the competitive advantage you think you should get by training that way, then you can choose to not do it. You can always make a safe bet with classic or more conservative training regimes wich will give you value on market and court. Sure, they won't be unique players but the won't bad ones either.

I know is hard to face a spiky economic enviroment like the present but there is one thing for sure, it provides you a set of rules in wich you know the best teams won't create an insurmountable gap between you and them. This will be true between you and your league's champion like is true between you and your country's champion. But it does have a cost: it can be frustrating at times.

Maybe an interesting policy could be to continue with small salary deflation combined with some increase of money for teams in a way that could achieve the same goals as the current dinamic system. This could also bring some extra fun for managers. I mean, getting more money is something managers value and if it's done in a interesting way it could be usefull. Like getting invitations for movie stars to your VIP seats in order to get extra cash or merchandising(an unexploted feature of the game).

Last edited by Zero, the Magi. at 10/18/2010 2:01:22 PM

Maybe he's trying to say its hard to succeed with a training-to-sell based model then it would be in an inflationary market, as compare to a training-for-keeps model. If you're training for other teams you won't get much return. If you're training your players for keeps to win and have a team built around that training you will see dividends in revenues derived from on-court success (promotion, arena).

But also if you train for your team(as for example I do,as you can see from my transfer history),to be competitive in the medium time,you will need to sell some of the players that you train to buy other players in the roles that you don't train,and at the time,the value of the mid-level players(especially centers) is really too low

Training bi-role,you can't have better than average player,so you are forced to change training and lose much more time before ever start to be competitive

But if you train mono-role,you have to fight with the restrictions on the salaries,and with deflaction you can't have enough value from the player's sell to rebuild a good part of the your team

It's economically a tragedy



Last edited by Steve Karenn at 10/18/2010 2:05:37 PM