BuzzerBeater Forums

Ok, you got me on a semantic. I'm not going to look back to see if I did or didn't say it. The point remains that the fan survey isn't realistic.

My point is not to "get" you (or anyone else, for that matter). It's hard to discuss anything when the other side is changing the argument all the time.

As for the fan survey being realistic -- BB-Charles is on the record somewhere saying that being able to do trading on the market for some profit. So far, I've heard nothing from the management suggesting that this functionality is not performing as expected.

It is also expected that you should be able to use the transfer market to make your team better by purchasing stronger players. It seems to me -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- that you expect teams to play for virtually no crowd unless they keep the same roster for multiple seasons, and this is just not goign to happen.

so nnot giving long term contract to create monster get punished, tryining to keep stars or own draft player when they reached are necessary level get impossible. Making it more attractive to train old players, since you can give them imporvement with no cost on a long term contract. To use your word "silly" in my eyes, but they are crazy.

I'm changing the argument?

It seems to me -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- that you expect teams to play for virtually no crowd unless they keep the same roster for multiple seasons, and this is just not goign to happen.

Read again what I wrote. Changing players is vital to any team. Move up a division? You'll need to change players. Down? Same thing. Having a roster of 25-30 different players over a season? Fans aren't going to be impressed.

At the moment, I ignore the "I am familiar with the star players, and am not afraid that they will be transferred" section because I know that I will make more money by doing so. This means that it doesn't work.

Anyway, the original suggestion was for players to be on contracts. Perhaps there is another way. Maybe if the player is no longer needed, the team should receive a portion of the money back and the player becomes a free agent, ready for other managers to bid on.

I dunno... I'm just thinking of ways to help with the issues that quite a few people have. Shut me down if you want, but my only intention is to help, not to hinder or create negativity.

Having a roster of 25-30 different players over a season? Fans aren't going to be impressed.

And I'm saying fans wouldn't care as long as you win games. As far as unfounded claims go, I don't see how yours is better than mine.

At the moment, I ignore the "I am familiar with the star players, and am not afraid that they will be transferred" section because I know that I will make more money by doing so. This means that it doesn't work.

No, it doesn't. It means there are trade-offs in the game.

Maybe if the player is no longer needed, the team should receive a portion of the money back and the player becomes a free agent, ready for other managers to bid on.

It's funny how you describe existing functionality, but refuse to acknowledge it because it's not called what you want it to be called. In this particular case, you're describing "putting a player on the transfer market for sale". No, it doesn't give you guaranteed money, but things you know what they say about death and taxes.

I dunno... I'm just thinking of ways to help with the issues that quite a few people have. Shut me down if you want, but my only intention is to help, not to hinder or create negativity.

I don't think there's anything negative in having a discussion. But you have to realize that sinking development time in to something that pretty much exists already is not good a good way to do game development.

Ok, I'm blanket wrong. My apologies.

And I'm saying fans wouldn't care as long as you win games. As far as unfounded claims go, I don't see how yours is better than mine.

Would you go and support your city's team if you never knew who the players were going to be?

No, it doesn't. It means there are trade-offs in the game.

Absolutely right that there are tradeoffs in the game. It's what makes it awesome and it's the reason I stay and keep playing. However, this tradeoff is too one-sided. It's far more beneficial to dismiss that part of the fan survey than try to satisfy it, making it not very balanced. See, this is what I'm saying. You're saying I'm blanket wrong. I'm saying that you have great points, but you're not blanket right.

It's funny how you describe existing functionality

I see what you're saying about that now. You're right. I still think there would be a way to do it where contracts expire. Maybe I'm grasping at straws on that one...

Maybe what would be better is if there were particular times that teams rearranged their rosters. Or, perhaps, what would be better is if managers could only add to their roster before (or just after) the allstar break.

Make the game less about the transfer market and more about basketball strategies.

The problem with guaranteed contracts is - you can't get rid of them. So basically any manager not really home with "what his incomes can handle" is at a big risk of being bankrupt at the end of a season (or sooner). With BB's training system, more than one season contracts are not reasonable anyway. You can't predict the teams training plan and it might change drastically with occuring injury.

How many teams have money at the start of the next season to hand out signing bonuses. I know big country teams are sitting on low cash. If they can't unload some of their players for cash (with contracts), where should the money come to sign any players at the start of the season? This would make tanking even more powerful. As teams who have been playing near salary cap, can not sign anyone at the start of the next season.

With valueing contracts by "what the player feels is best for him" is wandering into a really gray area. That's why BB has salarys based on skills. Want that player -> pay that salary. There are no Payton's, Malone's etc to agree to a low salary to get a championship.

Contracts would also kill the TL completely. There is only offseason for contracts and really no point in looking at the TL. If the TL is active with that system, then a lot of teams are going bankrupt -> a lot of players leaving. I don't think anyone wants that. If everyone is good at managing contracts, there is no activity and the next time you get some exitement is next offseason. Pretty boring imo. There are restrictions to daytraders currently and I don't think it is easy atm. If a manager can make profit on the TL, then by all means, let him get it. Knowing the TL and prices needs a lot of browsing work and free time. Eventually the daytraders get tired and most of them quit. Some start proposing ideas in the forums to limit it even more (as they are tired of doing it themselves). I used to oppose daytrading strongly when I started the game. I have realised that it's ment to be part of the game by BB's. Currently it seems hard enough to not be a problem.

One more thing we disagree on. You think the FA is bad and the starting price for FA's is too low. Here is an example of a player who just retired (10952856). I would have bought this guy. I like many divI teams in big countrys (Estonia is nr13-th in size, so I consider us a big country) just do not have enough money lieing around (yes I said it, I have less than 1mil free funds). There are plenty of similar retirement. This actually shows, the FA system is working. Managers have stuffed their salary caps -> less free funds -> more FA retirements.