BuzzerBeater Forums

I like the idea that someone had of just starting all players listed at $1. That would take care of most of the abuses.

As I understand your posts, the main abusive practice of daytraders that you and others are trying to address is listing players way high, then if they don’t sell relisting a bit lower, and repeating the process, still at way high prices, until someone stupidly buys him. I totally agree with you that that is an abuse that should be stopped. But most real auctions have what is called a reserve, and the ability to set a starting price in BB works much like a reserve, which has a valid use. Doing away with that hurts everybody equally. A better solution would be to ban relisting of a player who didn’t sell for a month or two. That would introduce a time element that would put a serious dent in the abusive practice.

And I would have no problem with autobid for Supporters only. It would be time saving without being a competitive bar.

Yeah, but time saving for whom? For the daytrader to whom the players are completely fungible, nothing but a commodity to be bought and sold ... or for the serious manager who identifies a player or two who would have an important role on his team? For the daytrader, autobid is GREAT; he can bid on scores of players and never bother to follow up. If he gets them, fine; if not, fine too, because there never was any intent to employ the player in a significant role on his team. The daytrader figures he’ll get enough players to flip for a profit with less work required than currently. I suspect most of the most active daytraders have this figured out already, and this underlies their advocacy of autobid. It would be a wonderful tool for daytraders. BUT for the serious manager who wants a particular player or two to fill an important role on his team, autobid is no help. He still has to be there at the conclusion of the auction to do his best to obtain the key player(s).

I'm not all that into HT but what I known so far is that they have a limit to how many players you can autobid on. I don't know.if it is just one player and if the number varies for normal users and the different levels of supporters that they have.

It's just one player, as far as I know. Until you're outbid or the bidding ends you can't put another autobid on a player,

I suspect most of the most active daytraders have this figured out already, and this underlies their advocacy of autobid.

Still barking opinions as facts, are we? I haven't seen a single daytrader advocating anything. You're welcome to name all these daytraders, who have done daytrading in the last 14 weeks and are advocating autobids, to prove your point.

BUT for Mike Franks, the serious manager, who wants a particular player or two to fill an important role on his team, autobid is no help.

There, fixed it for you mate. You have the awful habit of stating opinions as facts, it happens in every single post of yours. This is what you think about your own situation. Your opinion does not apply to every "serious" manager, assuming this is not just another cheap way to auto-glorify yourself, but to describe any non-daytrader.

autobid is no help. He still has to be there at the conclusion of the auction to do his best to obtain the key player(s).

I can't understand how you can blatantly ignore all people have written about autobid over and over. A manager willing to bid does not "have to be" there at the end of the auction as you say. At worst he will put in the max bid he's prepared to put forward for the player. You can say, as you've done before, well then why not bid the maximum amount directly? Because if he had autobid, he could win the auction for any price between the current bid and his maximum bid. In other, more simple, words: he does not necessarily have to pay the maximum bid, he could pay less. If you can't see how this is a benefit and how this would encourage people -the serious managers, the average joe, whoever- to bid, then I think you are actually trolling us.

I hope I have been concise and to-the-point enough :).

Last edited by Lemonshine at 11/15/2014 7:37:27 PM

Perpete, you have hit on two more big probems with autobid, besides the way it would become the daytraders most important tool. (No need to repeat the post above of 11/15/2014 12:39:16 PM)
1. If you believe it would be an advantage to players of the basketball sim, you wouldn't want to provide it for supporters only. Good point ... though it's utiity as a daytrading tool is a bigger problem IMO.
2. You need the page clicks that you would lose if there were autobidding.

BTW, I'm not going to respond directly to lemon, whose post is so full of inaccuracies that anyone can see them. No need for arguing.

Also, since autobid would become the favorite tool of daytraders, isn't it still relevant to a discussion of daytrading?

It seems like a big advantage over people not able to use autobid. One of the main point of BB is "do not give advantages to Supporter". So what is here ? It is an advantage and we can't give it to just a part of the BB users or it is not an advantage and people can play without it ?

Bravo, Perpete, the discussion on autobids should only be on 2 issues:

1) Is it easy to code or not?
2) If you can use it only for 1 auction at a time like in Hattrick, exactly how much of an advantage is it? Does it constitute a substantial unfair advantage if only Supporters will get it (because we don't want to lose revenues from the normal users like me, but supporters already contribute revenues to the game)?

On 1) I have no idea, Marin didn't mention anything. If it's long to code, let's just end the discussion here, as it is completely pointless to even consider it -I said so from the beginning, when ideas about autobids began to be posted.
On 2) it is clearly an advantage, even the troll, in his parallel world, believes that. What is contentious is how much of an advantage it is and who will benefit the most from implementing it. More than a advantage it is a matter of convenience and not just for people in the less fortunate time-zones. If, as it is in Hattrick, it was limited to 1 player at a time, would it really constitute a unfair advantage for the small portion of the community who have it? I don't think so: if you're one of those who don't have it, you will have to log in and bid exactly as you do now. Those who have it will use it and they will still keep monitoring how the price is moving. Can I say bookmarks are an advantage? They are, but really they are not such a great advantage that it bothers me if I don't have them. Any way to boost the liquidity of the market should be considered (especially since numbers are dwindling and you introduce money sinks all the time) and this is a way,however limited, to do exactly that.

Then there is also the fact that Supporter costs $40/year, so you should give those who might sign up a reason to do so, without breaking the game for those who don't. Small things like this are exactly what you need. If autobids are a quick and easy thing to code, I'd love to see 2 polls: "Do you think an autobid feature, for a single auction at a time, will constitute an unfair advantage to supporters, if implemented for them only?" (Yes) (No) (I don't know); "How much more likely are you to sign up/re-sign for supporters if an autobid function (for a single auction) is implemented for supporters only?" (0%-I won't ever sign up for supporter) (10%) (20%)....(90%) (100%-I'd definitely sign up)

Problem, BB needs to have people connected to live and I'm speaking about ad revenue, but also forum activity. If people aren't connected, we lose on both of those things.

Then perhaps a more pressing matter than very few mentioned in the other thread should be better links to the forums, automatic login to the game chat of your nation if you watch the game online, a new viewer which can be more easily seen on mobile (the viewer often crashes because of ads btw) and lets you add the score of other games you're monitoring on the side. If money is the top priority, we should think how to improve the game so that the number of hits is improved, shouldn't we?

Last edited by GM-Perpete at 11/16/2014 9:39:49 AM