BuzzerBeater Forums

I want to ask about something completely diffrent - how long will be the old version of economy available?

Someone mentioned that they have thier strategy planned 4-5-6 seasons into the future. Is this a valid argument for no change? If you can plan that far in advance with no deviation from the plan, it doesnt seem very realistic or 'management' oriented. Adapt and overcome? The best laid plans of mice and men? Insert your own cliche here about the effectiveness of long-term plans on any aspect of life. I dont think the game should stand still to accomodate those who refuse to be flexible.

No, it's just a....goth being erm, reality-challenged. (It's a euphamism for 'tosser' so file another moan mate).

A few coaches appear to believe they are the only ones to have a long term strategy. Reality does not appear to be impinging on their vision. GL to them!

It is just a little frustrating to keep hearing how smaller team-based countries have it so rough. I have been subtle in my response to this, but perhaps being more direct is better.

A new manager from Malta can get his team today, be NT manager tomarrow, win his Cup and be national champ all in his first year. Chances are I will never enjoy any one of these accolades. I still dont understand how this is worse for small-country teams by comparison. I dont think it is realistic to think that because of these new changes coming, everyone will have only or even mostly players from just thier own country. So if the top team from Japan has to pay a 10% increase for a foriegn player, and the top team from Spain has to pay 20%, shouldnt that allow a norrowing of the gap between these two teams? Not only can a small country team start and continue to make more money than a new team form a big country, they do not have the intense level of competition to compete with in the top series of thier country. They make more and require less to be competitive. This change only increases that ratio in thier favor. More money and less price than a top team in a large country for the same transfer.

In regard to ratio on national players per active team, I was refering to incoming recruits, and the ratio is the same no matter what country you play in. 3 recruits per active team per season, as many people looking for national transfers as feeding them into the system. Yes, newer countries have less overall players than countries who have been around for longer, but how much help can a small country expect without putting teams from bigger countries at a disproportionate disadvantage?

So if the top team from Japan has to pay a 10% increase for a foriegn player, and the top team from Spain has to pay 20%

They make more and require less to be competitive. This change only increases that ratio in thier favor. More money and less price than a top team in a large country for the same transfer.

This is why im surprised there aren't more teams from the bigger countries in here, but I guess this mostly effects only the few that are playing in the B3. When I've seen a team can dominate a country with a handful of teams while making 400k plus per game and only 150k in wage, there's just no chance for teams from bigger countries in the long run.

Last edited by brian at 2/25/2009 8:22:02 PM

so its unfair to small countries if its flat.. but unfair to large countries if its not flat...

hmm... sounds like therefore there should be just the right appropriate level of non flatness which makes it fair.. no?

I have been amazed at the response. First of all, no one knows what the change will be. Secondly, the wording of the statement implies that homegrown players will be cheaper, not that foreign players will be more expensive. So if you go the way you are, you won't be losing anything. If, however, you decide to have a few homegrown players on your team, you will save some cash.

I am from a very small country. I think that there are good and bad points about being in a small country. Good- it is easier to make $$$, and easier to succeed. Bad- competition is lacking. Getting to play in the BBB is great, even though I have been spanked both times I have been involved (By the way- the BBB is elite, not elitist).

I think many of the posters on these forums are fairly narrow-minded in their reasoning. "what helps me is good, regardless of its influence on the 40000 other users." I believe that what is best for the majority of users is best. The majority of users are mid-level teams from big countries. To that end, what players like myself or superfly or springfield drunkers or hambourg bulls think or want doesn't and shouldn't really matter. In a game of this magnitude appeasing the vocal few is wrong. If the vocal few can't handle adversity it is better for the developers that they leave the communtiy than 20000 typical users. Not to say that the developers shoudn't listen to the vocal few- who often have a much deeper interest and more in-depth insights than the hoi polloi- but the game and site will benefit from having the interests of those masses in mind when they implement changes.

That's what I think anyway.

Last edited by somdetsfinest at 2/26/2009 7:16:16 PM

Stop making sense.

Stop being so harsh to me!

but that game and site will benefit from having the interests of those masses in mind when they impement changes.

If this is true, and I think it is, I am quite sure that the decision shoul be not to introduce a tax on foreigners. The tax on foreigners might have an effect on how competitive BBB teams from different countries are (i.e. a very limited group of team) for all the rest the only effect will be that it forces them to spend more time on the transfer to find the player that fits their team. Any tax on foreigners will have this effect, so if it is for the masses the desicion is easy I would say and it has nothing at all to do with small/big countries (which it might for a minority).

I really hope that the BBs decide to keep this kind of limiting "protectionism" to Hattrick and do not introduce it in BB.

Last edited by chespirito at 2/26/2009 12:48:07 AM