BuzzerBeater Forums

I dont really understand what you are want the bbs to do about this. Cut government spending? Raise taxes? Get the federal reserve to increase interest rates?

Negative interest rates for hoarders would be a good start. There are plenty of teams around that have millions stored in the bank, there is no punishment for that and thus tanking works like a charm.

Once the money hits the market the real harm is done.

An economic success tax? Let's penalize the people who figure out that BB is an economic game and profit off that fact? Wouldn't it be better to change the fact that people can make money while tanking and get the incentive of getting that HOF 5/5 A+ prospect in the draft? Marin mentioned the possibility of fan riots to help penalize tanking but I hope an economic success tax is not in the works.

How would they be chasing fewer players? When players go bot players that meet salary requirements are put on the TL. ...
I dont really understand what you are want the bbs to do about this. Cut government spending? Raise taxes? Get the federal reserve to increase interest rates?

...and the players that don't meet "salary requirements" but might have some value to lower level teams, which is probably most or all of the players on a team going bot, are gone from the game for good, replaced by worthless players. So yes, fewer players.

And a new team with $300,000 free money will replace a bankrupt team when a new manager signs up or a current manager takes a second team, so more money chasing fewer players, with no companion process for less money and more players.

One obvious thing that could be done is lowering the requirements for a player to go on TL instead of retirement. Easy, effective, a step in the right direction. The steps against day-trading were a small step in the right direction as well. Too bad that higher level managers, including one GM posting on this thread, don't understand and just mock the problem with childish sarcasm. They aren't part of the solution, so you know what that makes them part of.

Another thing that is too bad is that I renewed my supporter in February.

Also, every team that enters bankruptcy has pumped more money into the game than it had -- that's why it goes bankrupt. So you have bankrupt teams pumping money into the game, new managers getting $300,000 free money, all causing money to flow into the game. There is no corresponding process to counter-balance this, and the problem gets worse and worse. Add to that top level managers blissfully riding the bubble. Add to that the sour attitude of GM's who cover their embarrassment at not understanding the problem with sarcasm. It's a steaming pile ...

Having like 20 million in the Bank döes nothing good.

Having like 20 million in the Bank döes nothing good.

Interesting how the guy answered you with a rant but nowhere did he suggest $20m in the bank is good. So I guess he agreed with you.

Also, every team that enters bankruptcy has pumped more money into the game than it had -- that's why it goes bankrupt. So you have bankrupt teams pumping money into the game, new managers getting $300,000 free money, all causing money to flow into the game. There is no corresponding process to counter-balance this, and the problem gets worse and worse. Add to that top level managers blissfully riding the bubble. Add to that the sour attitude of GM's who cover their embarrassment at not understanding the problem with sarcasm. It's a steaming pile ...

$300,000 in free money plus 50k a week for the first four weeks for new non-Utopia teams, but that's the sort of detail I should leave for someone who understands the game experience for new players. I suppose the logical comment would be that it would be hilarious if you were arguing that the reason costs are too high for new players is that they're given too much money, so they should be helped by not getting money (though, of course, I would prefer to say that in a more humorous manner since I can't imagine you'd be believing that).

But you have a remarkable knack for simplifying everything down to one component and then focusing strictly on it. In reality, there are many factors which cause money to spring forth from outside the player ecosystem and to vanish from it, in addition to the money moved around between players. A probably incomplete accounting of these may include:

1. The $300k free money for new teams plus 50k/week for four weeks. This is money created from nothing.
2. TV revenue. Money created from nothing.
3. Attendance revenue. Money created from nothing.
4. Cup and promotion money. Money created from nothing.
5. Merchandise revenue. Money created from nothing.
6. Staff hiring costs. Money thrown down a hole.
7. Staff wages and severance. Money thrown down a hole.
8. Taxes on TL sales. Money thrown down a hole.
9. Player salaries. Money thrown down a hole.
10. Scouting points. Money thrown down a hole.
11. Arena expansion cost. Money thrown down a hole.
12. Interest on debt. Money thrown down a hole.
13. Overextension tax. Money thrown down a hole.
14. Team / arena name changes. Money thrown down a hole.
15. GM fines and transfer price adjustments. Money thrown down a hole, with the caveat that fines and TPAs can be appealed and so sometimes some of the money thrown in the hole may end up finding its way back out of the hole.

And then in an environment where there is that much money moving into and out of the system, there is one way of transferring money between players:
16. Player transfers. Money exchange, minus a percentage down the hole as noted above.

So if you're indicating there's no balance to counter the $300k money for free, that's absolutely incorrect - and really, it's an inconsequential amount compared to the money created from mist and evaporating back into mist every week. If you're focusing instead on there being no process to counter-balance the transfer prices specifically, that's incorrect as the market adjusts itself based on supply and demand, and there's nothing at all preventing you or anyone from supplying the players desired.

In the end, when users have increased, prices have increased. When users have decreased, prices have decreased. When people were training more players for a skill profile than were desirable, those prices fell. When fewer people were creating players for a skill profile than were desirable, those prices rose. When the market doesn't react thusly is when more intervention is required.

Are you going to require that people not evaluate, critique and discuss the individual components of the economy, but must instead merely list every single component they can think of and pretend that that qualifies as a rational analysis? Are you also going to pretend that components of the economy earned by managers or spent as the result of a deliberate decision are the same as components over which managers have no control whatsoever? Sorry, you are going to have a very poor conversation if you do that. Short, but poor.

Look, we all know the economy is out of kilter. Not many people are going to leave BB over that. But the attitude that people in position to do something about it don't give a rip, or worse yet just joke about it or mock those who make suggestions, THAT will do it. Who wants to waste their time on a site where that attitude prevails?

Last edited by Mike Franks at 4/8/2015 8:01:05 PM

Having like 20 million in the Bank döes nothing good.

Interesting how the guy answered you with a rant but nowhere did he suggest $20m in the bank is good. So I guess he agreed with you.

He did not agree - unless I have a different understanding of the english language.

I think that "economic success" has to be penalized as soon as it reaches a certain limit of stored money. Ususally Inflation works like that, but the BB-ecosystem just changed too drastically in the last few months, so what we see now are the aftershocks of all the changes that happened (shrinking userbase, Money influx from Utopia and so on).

@Mike I am debating economics and BB. Two things that I like to talk about. If you want to minimizing my comments, by labeling me a "ranter" and subscribing to some conspiracy about the GMs and BBs not caring about lower division managers, then I guess I can talk about this issue with the other posters in the thread. The one GM who is posting in this thread has for years helped out lower division USA managers, so lets talk about the actual content of posts rather than the posters in the thread.

Some guy tanking for 20 million in cash to go on a run to a DI title isn't really going to impact the lower division user. The only guys they are competing for are the 20-60k DI backups. They are going to be going for the highest possible TSP guys for the salary they can afford. DV/DIV teams dont have any reason to have these 110 TSP + guys. The richest teams will always be able to afford the best players. Thats just a simple fact. If you want one of these elite guys, you need to train them yourself.

The fact that BB has been decreasing in users means that in the long run, the addition of Utopia money and users will do more to balance out the economy in the long-run unless the game finds reverse the trend of people leaving the game. The BB economic is a complex system, not a simple one. Changing one aspect without looking at the whole system can result in unintended consequences that could have been foreseen.

@knecht: You are correct. I am not against some guy saving for many, many seasons to get $20 million. Nothing wrong with that. I am against daytrading and against tanking, which allows people to unfairly accumulate cash. If people don't have an incentive to tank and accumulate cash, they won't do it. Putting a tax on cash right now will actual make inflation temporarily worse because all the hoarders will have to spend their money or lose it to the tax.

I think you can do this by increasing the penalty to teams that go into the over-extension tax, changing the way the draft works, giving players an economic incentive to want to be in the highest division possible while fielding the most competitive team that they can afford.