BuzzerBeater Forums

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.

I know you didn't say that (although you facetious implied it), but you are ignoring my point. My point is that the day traders are setting the minimum bidding point for everyone else.

Trader speculation inflates different markets all over the world on a regular basis (no I'm not saying it is the only factor, but it is a factor) so why do people so vehemently deny that it could be a problem here?

In my opinion the best solution is to make a mix of 2 proposals; increase a little bit the taxation, moving it from 80% to 70% and the introduction of chemistry for the ts. In this way the top teams that have some $ extra because they are on the first divisions, should care better before to making wild day trading cause they will risk to lose some matches and it gives some possibilities of trading the the newcomers that are playing against some bots. I'll be for a more drastical reduction, but I can understand that some people can consider funny to make $ over the heads of the noobs

8) A proposal that I've in mind now is to put a limit of the $ coming from the trading per season, for example 2 millions then you must put the new players bought at zero as bid start. Of course this will be for 1 season, it means that if I buy a player today, I can resell with huge profit next season and this will be not counted as "trading profit"

I've to go out, only a small consideration regarding the comparation of the prices; I think it's too early, a lot of people doesn't know exactly which is a "good" price, for example I never spent 3,1 millions for a player but there are users disposal to do that. The difference from ht is that here the skills are more important and always making a comparation with ht, this way to proceed didn't solve at all the problem.
Last, the big profit that dt realised are coming from players booted, too many players put on the market at the same time, if someone can stay at home all the day, for sure he'll find a good price.
Charles can "monopolize" this discussion whenever he wants, I suggest that he will monopolize this discussion We are really happy to discuss with the big boss ;)

Taxation is already at maximum level.

I would vote heavily on 3(which is a realistic effect); and in lesser favor on 4.

I am a strong believer of the free market with all its weaknesses and strenghts.

So any further interruptions by some governed party is not how things should be.

Please; I am also disappointed if I cannot keep up because a trader outbids easily. That's life.

I like number 1 and number 3. Tax profits (heavily in the first few weeks) and introduce team chemistry (but not randomly like in HT, not sure how it works here for NT).

Further suggestions:
- Tax the starting price (even only 1%, with 1k minimum). So manager are less willing to place the same player on the market over and over again at ridiculous prices.

- I am really concerned about skill trading. It can become in BB much more severe than it is in HT. I would not consider minutes played in the previous team for training, except for game shape.

Last edited by Newton07 at 3/11/2008 5:01:25 AM

But with that in mind, let me throw a few possibilities out there, and I'm curious how you'd rank these. Not all of these are particularly good ideas, but it's more just to stimulate discussion. These aren't in any particular order.

i like 2 and 3

2 leaves room for a moderate trading (which is perfectely acceptable)
3 helps the equilibrium between users who rotate training to train the entire team and those who train 1 role and trade and buy better players in the non-trained roles

1 & 3 are very good ideas!

...and team chemistry shouldn't be resetted at the end of the season...

I haven't read every single post, but I haven't seen this mentioned, so I will:

why not a roster limit of 15? The first two weeks of a season this would be 18 to give teams time to incorporate their three draft picks into their plans.

If you can't play with 15, even with three injured players, you don't know what you are doing.

you can try to train more players what about teamtraining stamina freethrows, also 15 with 3 injuries doesnt work well you probably get gameshape problems...
and if you unable to sell your drafts within the first two weeks you fire them?
doesnt sound good to me...

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.

I know you didn't say that (although you facetious implied it), but you are ignoring my point. My point is that the day traders are setting the minimum bidding point for everyone else.

Trader speculation inflates different markets all over the world on a regular basis (no I'm not saying it is the only factor, but it is a factor) so why do people so vehemently deny that it could be a problem here?

How does it inflate the markets when everyone is able to stop bidding at the moment when he's unwilling to pay more?

I am not denying the problem there. However, the problem arises when trades have an unchecked ability to make huge profits. As far as bidding is concerned, one must look at them as a regulator against arbitrage -- i.e. preventing people from getting _completely_ ripped off because they have listed at a very low price and there are too few people online at the deadline. I don't see why such type of deals should be available on the market.

Why does the market need to regulate naturally? It is an enclosed economic situation and regulations are not the norm rather than the exception.

I may as well just use the NBA as my prime example. There is a roster cap which regulates, there is a salary cap which regulates further, and trades are regulated by salary equivalency. (Actually a roster cap might be a good solution now that I think about it)

I realize that those are not necesarily options, but it the presence of regulation I point out. I assume European leagues have some sort of regulations involved as well.

Looking at it this way, BB also has regulation: there is sponsor income and TV games that bring a certain amount of income per division level. These form a soft 'salary cap', which makes sustaining higher than a certain payroll per division level difficult.

Other than that, I don't see why the developers should influence influence market prices of players, or how this relates to actual NBA salary cap regulations: trades do not (and unfortunately cannot) exist in this game, and transfers do not exist in the NBA.

There's a lot in your post, and I don't want to monopolize the discussion - I agree with a lot of it, especially the idea that the market should be regulated naturally (that's really the solution I've been seeking, but I haven't found it). I'll hold off on replying to most of the rest for now, but I did want to reply to this:

What has to be considered for the long run, though, that once teams 'saturate' with players to the level where all their income goes for wages, the economy will be hit by a sharp liquidity crisis. As in, the more saturated teams there are, the less disposable cash there will be out there for transactions on the transfer list.

One effect that you should consider which exists here but not in HT is that there's a much more meaningful difference between divisions in terms of the salary a team can support. Something that we expect to help in the long run is the disruption (in both directions) caused by changing divisions; our hope is that very few teams can really remain in equilibrium for extended periods of time without moving players, or else you're certainly correct that there's a liquidity problem. Whether this works is of course something to be seen...

Huge differences between income at different division levels have a couple implications. First, they make teams that promote vulnerable, since they are likely to go into a division where other teams will be significantly stronger (due to the ability to sustain a much higher payroll); in the long run, this will be almost guaranteed by the fact that divisions are designed to be relatively static. Second, the necessity to have huge differences will hamper to an extent the ability to add more lower level leagues as countries expand, if you look to retain the income ratio.