BuzzerBeater Forums

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.

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...

No news there. I didn't think it would sound good to you and your ilk. That's why it is a promising idea!

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.

Ah...just as earlier you said I misquoted you, you now misquote me. I never said that those specific regulations would apply, in fact I specifically mentioned the fact that they don't.

I was merely pointing out the fact that regulations to the market are the norm not the exception, not that those exact regulations were applicable. (Which I also stated in the last post)

Look at european sports instead if you prefer to use a model closer to BB. They have regulations in place as well. I only used the NBA as the first example of a regulated sports market that came into my head.

Your mention of the BB 'soft salary cap' actually makes my point for me. All the things you mentioned are designed to do exactly what you say they do. Day trading makes them moot. A players earns his way to a top division where the income supports a better roster, and he can be outdone, by a division 4 player with a few extra hours per week, financially because of day trading.

I think the difference between us is that you think this is a good thing while I don't, because once again we arrive at the problem of day trading becoming the only meaningful strategy if you want to contend long term.

because once again we arrive at the problem of day trading becoming the only meaningful strategy if you want to contend long term.

That's just simply not the case.

Sure it is.

Look at it this way. Player 1 could build his team, train, build up his arena, and do everything besides day trade extremely well. He could do this for few seasons until he has managed to climb a couple of divisions, and is working his way to the top.

Meanwhile, player 2 comes in later, and in a single season of daytrading has the money to buy a better team than player 1. He will enevitable catch and pass player one because the amount of money one can make in the market daytrading is essentially unlimited, while the money one can make in any other facet of the game has definite limits.

Maybe its just me, but I had the impression that people were supposed to rise to the top gradually based on overall managerial skills, not by mastering a single all-important element.

Look, I love this game, and accept it how it is, but there is always room for improvement. I also feel it is important to make sure that the game is balanced to keep it interesting in the long term.

I'll use my own team as an example, I know that I have made some mistakes in developing my team. I couldn't decide early how I wanted to train, so some of my trainees are a bit behind the curve. I also didn't build my stadium as fast as I ought, leaving mne a bit behind some contemporaries. That being said I think that I have done a relatively decent job of it, and financially I have had steady growth. Yet there are a large number of players in the game who have been here half as long as me who have 10 times the money I do. That does not make sense to me. Even if my stadium was triplet the current size, and selling out every game, I would not have the money available that some of those guys who have only been playing a month or two have.

This seems odd.

This is only possible because day trading is obviously superior to any other facet of the game. So superior that many people here feel they cannot compete with it, no matter how well they manage their team otherwise. I do love this game, but when it reaches the point that I am forced to spend my time scouring the market and crunching numbers just to compete then it will not be nearly as fun. (even though I will probably still play because it will still be better than most other games)