BuzzerBeater Forums

better players.... no... your regular league leaders will be much weaker than mutants bought just to win against you

more cash... maybe... but that doesn't matter vs someone who doesn't care that much about spending what he has just to win that one/two games

home advantage... how does that matter in this thread? first of all there is no such thing as home advantage in last rounds of national cup, second it will not be enough to stop a muted team

again, did you ever see what happened in B3 and how it was handled by BBs?

Last edited by korsarz at 3/28/2011 7:39:36 PM

You're wrong, mutants aren't problem.
Problem in B3 is currently solved (because all players must be in club before B3 play-offs starts).
In league problem is solved too (players must be in club before weekly update, so if You want to win play-offs You must pay at least 2 salaries). Strengthening before play-offs is typical situation, I don't see reason why You can buy multiskill before play-off and You can't buy mutant? It's strategy and You have choice. If You want to stop buying mutants to win, then buying multiskill to win should be stopped too ;-) Strengthening is strengthening.
Only needed thing is first salary after transfer, and maybe blocking transfer before few last runds in national cups (the same as in league and B3 play-offs).

so in fact you're saying "the problem is solved but there is a problem and it needs to be solved"

ok, let's have a look at 2 situations.
1. The team buys a player to win the relegation, cup or other.
2. The team buys a player before weak 5 when the team plays with the main rival for 5th place in order to avoid relegation and guarantee the 5th place in advance.

What will happen? in the 1st case we see lots of trashtalks on the forum, discussing if it is fair, that it should be changed and so on.

In the 2nd you could find some single messages on the league forum. And that's all. Though, in case2 the team gets more profit during offseason and doesn't relegate.

The idea is similar - buying a monster. Why is everyone talking only about the first situation?

ok, let's have a look at 2 situations.
1. The team buys a player to win the relegation, cup or other.
2. The team buys a player before weak 5 when the team plays with the main rival for 5th place in order to avoid relegation and guarantee the 5th place in advance.

What will happen? in the 1st case we see lots of trashtalks on the forum, discussing if it is fair, that it should be changed and so on.

In the 2nd you could find some single messages on the league forum. And that's all. Though, in case2 the team gets more profit during offseason and doesn't relegate.

The idea is similar - buying a monster. Why is everyone talking only about the first situation?

probably because we're now in pre-playoffs period...

I agree with you that those are very similar situations and I want to tackle both if possible. There are plenty of possible solutions:
1. player can't play for you one or couple weeks after the purchase
2. setting the transfer deadline few weeks before playoffs
3. drastically cutting down money from transfer fee in first few weeks after purchase (now 20%, can be even 80%)
... and so on
All those solutions have their faults, it has to be handled by BBs as they know better how it will impact the economy overall and what's their strategy about BB players development.

Last edited by korsarz at 3/29/2011 8:01:57 AM

1. player can't play for you one or couple weeks after the purchase
2. setting the transfer deadline few weeks before playoffs
3. drastically cutting down money from transfer fee in first few weeks after purchase (now 20%, can be even 80%)
... and so on
All those solutions have their faults, it has to be handled by BBs as they know better how it will impact the economy overall and what's their strategy about BB players development.

1. it is quite strange and I don't like, it would mean that you by player before the season but you can't play him neither in league nor cup for few weeks and in addition it would cause GS drop as there would not be any match to give him any minutes
2. it's not solution for situation described by GM-AlexFerguson unless it's 11 weeks before playoff :-)
3. I like more not cutting down the fees but not allow transfer listing player until some period in new team passes (maybe 7 weeks, which mean half a season), but still someone could by player for one match and fire him without paying any salary (if he is not NT player)


Last edited by rwystyrk at 3/29/2011 9:10:15 AM

as I said... all options have some faults
yes, the one you added is a very good idea... I'd modify it a bit and we'll get a massive financial punishment for the "divine trick"... modification: player must stay in the club at least 4 weeks (that number of weeks seems reasonable) so that he can be sold/fired without consequences, if he is sold/fired before the club must pay him the salary for those 4 weeks

still it's not only the issue of making the divine-trick much more expensive, it's also a matter of cutting it down so it won't be used in crucial games (especially at the end of the season)

still it's not only the issue of making the divine-trick much more expensive, it's also a matter of cutting it down so it won't be used in crucial games (especially at the end of the season)

I think with this changes divine-tricks would be very rare. I would start with this change and monitor if there are still some divine-tricks for eventual further changes.

as I said... all options have some faults :)

And still the current problem happens with less than 5% of the teams in the world of BB. If some changes are made - they will be for everyone. The idea is not to make more harm. I mean that it could become even worse. Also don't forget that all these changes will influence on the global BBeconomics.
So it is not a 5 minute decision.

Example:
1. Changing the selling % would lead to global change of economics. If not adjusted correctly - it could lead to inflation/deflation again. Noone is happy with that.
2. The team not able to use the player during xx weeks. Baaaad. Imagine if your players get injured. Also it would harm to new users. Hey, you've just bought a player, but wait 2 weeks to play. No.
3. Salaries need to be paid for at least the month(4 weeks). It is a good decision. Since really noone in real life can get a contract for less than a month :D I don't see huge disadvanatges of it. Though still it needs to be estimated better. And it should be also easy for the users to understand and see that.

Sure this suggestion won't stop buying begemotes to win the single game, but it will damage the team harshly..

So what you're saying is that you want brand new players to the game to be completely unable to sell off players as they're developing their starter team in order to solve the problem of mutant players. If you look at my Transfer History, you'll see that a few of the guys that I bought I immediately dropped again as I managed to pick up other better players in the meantime. With a 4 (or 7!) week selling freeze new teams would be locked into an ungodly long time of having to hold onto their initial purchase while still trying to figure out how the game works. That'd be a horrible idea for retention of new players.

Not to mention that a 4 week selling freeze would just mean that those players would be purchased by a team that has 1.2M saved up for just such a purpose. It's an interesting idea but I don't think it solves the problem and only raises a different one. Worse it would raise a different one that wouldn't be talked about much since new managers rarely become active in the forums until a bit later.