BuzzerBeater Forums

You've completely the opposite vision of mine of this game, but it's a pleasure to speak with you cause you're "open mind"

2 fast answers; you've called newcomers, a newcomers that has +5 millions coming from the market speculation can easily win the first division; once again, that's ok trading but without making this crazy profit. Second, the disadvantage is that making trading is the fastest and the easiest way to buld a great team. It takes a lot of time and not everybody has hours to spend in front of the monitor. If the intention is to "favorite" who has time to stay in the website that's ok, but I think that a good game shoudn't favorite who has more time otherwise who doesn't have time will simply leave the game. I'll continue in the post of Patjebono if I've other proposal, my position is clear I think

the opposite ^^
easily win the first division, i need to get there first and in the meantime they make much more money by their arena/tv games than i do...
the time thats a big thing, if i spend much time on something i want to see results, and i dont know any game i ever played (i played many games ^^) in which i was better when i played it less (my english is to bad i hope you understand).
for me it would be kinda boring just coming here check the results/lineup/t-updates...
if you like the real-life-compares a good manager should be there 24/7 for his team ;)
i understand the point with the job/family and other things which needs time, but if you got no time to play than dont play ^^

The problem with that is:

1.) This game is theoretically based on managing all facets and implementing strategy. The player with the best strategy is not necessarily the player who has the most time available. When you want to have a game based on strategy then it should not be easily dominated by those who simply have more time. It doesn't mean you should be better when you play less, but it does mean that the person who plans his team best should win.

2). It might be boring for if trades were limited, but many of us want all parts of the game to be matter. If trading to make money is all that matters then this game would become VERY boring for the rest of us, because then the game would require you to implement this strategy if you want even the slightest chance of competing. No other part of your strategy will matter.

I also think with the new announcements that holding a roster of 35 or so players now is becoming a risk that is just not worth taking.

Sure you are making some nice profits but this weekend with the salary changes and the fact more and more people are out of cup competitions the need for more good players is declining and will probably pick up again as people plan for the playoffs.

The last change slapped an almost instant 20% hit on DTs and the next change is unlikely to be any different. So for the DT outside the top 2 leagues where income is much lower the salaries and fees are having to be covered whilst the 12,000 seater stadiums and higher TV money in the top league means even the best DT's are only likely to be keeping up at best...

I try to pick up a trade a week/fortnight to cover my salaries and its no biggie if that option gets taken away from me. Restricting transfers will take away what many enjoy about the game but in the interests of the game being realistic I think something needs to be imposed....

Resale at 50% after day 1 is also harsh imo as you may need someone for 1-2 games due to injury and have to invest heavily. If you are dipping into funds that were for stadium or other purpose then you are being unfairly penalised. As the average starting player in most line ups is getting progressively better you are likely to have to commit over $500k / $1.5mil depending on what league you are in to do this and should be able to sell on to recoup if you choose.

So if either of these 2 is considered I hope it is the trading one..... I traded in the past because it was easy and because others did and seemed silly not to try and at least keep up with them. Did I really need to make 50 transfers in 4 weeks? Does anyone? no... as long as the number is manageable..

Maybe 50 trades in season 1 - 30 season 2 - etc etc.....

point 1 agreed time should not be the mainfactor of a game (then it would be like work), different strategies to improve would be the best, just to add, a team with a good transfer policy should and will have some advantages...

point 2, i actually want the same, all aspects should be important and i think if you use an good tactic you should be able to beat every team, as i said before i can adjust myself and if most of the people dont like it and think it should be limited and they probably do it somehow...

the easiest would be people check the prices and the transferhistory before they buy that would be the best limit to this issue.

I do agree that a team with good transfer policy should have advantages. That is why my preferred proposition is to limit the number of transfers allowed. It would allow those with skill in the market to still make some money there and use it to their advantage,but not to the point where it makes other aspects of the game secondary.

I prefer this method to ones that take money away. A profitable deal can still be profitable this way.

I don't though agree that day traders stabilize the market. Look at it this way. Every player that might be a good deal is bid on by day traders up to the point that the player is no longer a good deal. What this means is that people looking for players longer term have no choice but to bid past the point where day traders stop. This his the exact effect of driving up prices because this essentially puts the starting price, for those who want a permanent player, at a rate already above what would be considered a good deal.

Since this now becomes the starting point then the price people have to pay for players grows, and a this grows the price acceptable by day traders grows along with it, pushing it steadily higher.

Compare it to real estate. Take a city with low market values which has begun to improve itself. As soon as the potential for profit appears speculators immediately begin buying everything up. This is the exact process which creates enormous inflation because other people cannot get a deal any more and have to pay at least market value for every property. A cities real estate values can triple in 3-5 years because of speculators, who do basically exactly what day traders are doing.

Again though...I'm not saying it is wrong to profit from trades...it just needs a ceiling so that it doesn't outweigh other aspects of the game.

I don't though agree that day traders stabilize the market. Look at it this way. Every player that might be a good deal is bid on by day traders up to the point that the player is no longer a good deal. What this means is that people looking for players longer term have no choice but to bid past the point where day traders stop. This his the exact effect of driving up prices because this essentially puts the starting price, for those who want a permanent player, at a rate already above what would be considered a good deal.

On the other hand, if you put yourself in the shoes of the person who is selling the player, bidding a player up guarantees them that they will get fair price on their sale.

There are two things that you're missing: first, if we assume there is such thing as a fair market price, daytraders cannot bit more than, say 70-80 percent of it if they want to make any profit from the resale. Second, I don't see how buying a player for 80-100% of its market price can be considered a bad deal.

Those sound like parts of the same thing to me.

Sure the seller gets more as the market goes up, but in a steadily rising market it means nothing to get more because you can do less with your money. This leaves us back in the original scenario of playing the market becoming the dominant strategy.

Your numbers of 70-80% and 80-100% demonstrate the problem exactly. In a stable market product is sold at a relatively constant rate. There can be surges, and fluctuations, but those don't really matter at this point.

When day traders will bid up to 80% on a player 80% becomes the starting point for regular bidders. This limits the number of players that will be sold, as permanent players, below the 100% threshold because once an auction starts there is only 20% of value left to go before you have crossed it. That value you gave of 80% is the key. If day traders stopped at even 50% the entire scenario might be different, but you can hardly ask someone to limit himself that way, it wouldn't be practical.

If the number of trades allowable is limited then less players will be pushed automatically to that 80% point and the market has a chance to level off at values nearer to what supply/demand ratios would predict.

In short: If I want a player, I know that traders will autmatically push his price to 80% of what I should expect to pay for him. Once that point is reached I have to then bid against any one else who wants that player. This invariable pushes prices over the threshold.

Markets trend in the direction they are already moving without outside influences. If players were regularly available at 80-100% of market then prices would be trending downwards. Instead they are rising, and this is because of inflation due to massive market speculation (ie: day trading) pushing prices up to at least 110-120% and at times even higher.

No, buying a player at 80-100% would not be a bad deal, but that doesn't happen because the regular bidding starts so high.

I didn't say players are available at 80% of their market price. This a logical nonsense, since market determines the prices. All I am pointing out is that traders will always drop out at 80% of the price, since they can't make any profit. The final sale price is then determined by how much buyers are willing and able to pay.

Traders cannot 'push the prices above the threshold' this way. Not everyone lists at 0. Plenty list at the market rate. Plan and simple, if someone is willing and able to pay more than you for a certain player on a regular basis, you have underestimated the market price.

And no, inflation is not because of of 'intense market speculation'. BB is 3 seasons old. Prices are still in flux: this is partly because teams are accumulating wealth, and because they are still developing players.

Hi Charles,
I actually like the first 3 proposals (more or less in the same order you wrote them down).
Number 1 is my favourite, cause it still allows the trading but reduces a lot its impact on the gameplay. Number 2 is also good, but if it's not well implemented it could lead to big problems to teams in bad financial conditions. Number 3 cannot really stand by itself, cause money are usually stronger than teamspirit; also, after a couple of season of trading without caring about results, one could have really a lot of money. Number 4 is a very bad idea, and i'm not gonna take it into consideration ;-)
The others are more or less all related to a "compare transfer" feature, which in my opinion is not easy at all to implement and could bring people to confusion.

I understand your reason to keep a little bit of trading, and i appreciate a lot your efforts to try to improve this game with the community. Keep it like this ;-)

Last edited by ringo™ at 3/10/2008 9:06:26 PM