BuzzerBeater Forums

Oh I actually meant the value. Say...

Transfer Price Estimate:
There have been 30 recent transfers of 30-32 year old players of any potential with 20000-35000 salary and 75-84 guard and 25-29 forward skill points. Buzz R Beater is probably better than all 30 of these players, but the few that are most similar have been selling for around $ 30 000 to $ 200 000. There has also been 50 similar players who were listed between $ 300 000 to $ 1 500 000 who failed to get sold.

The final sentence tells you what price you shouldn't be selling at.

I think it's pointless to tell people "this player has been listed X number of times", because you're not going to go "oh this player has never been listed before, I'm willing to pay more for him" or "ew this player has been listed 10 times this season, I don't want to buy him anymore. That piece of info isn't going to help anyone or make or break any sale. But actually telling people how much their players won't go for would give them an idea of the recent market.

Also, if you look at the example I give above... Would you sell him at 200k or less? Would you risk it by going just under 300k and see if he sells?

It would at least give you a more informed decision on selling players. Plus we should have less "Very few players like Buzz R Beater have been transferred/transfer listed recently" notifications, since unsold players would also makes up the statistics. So you'd at least know what to avoid.

But then again, it will not solve the two situations I brought up as Transfer Estimates do currently exist and yet people still believe that their players are worth and inflated amount despite the transfer estimates telling them otherwise (a quick search on the TL would bring you to quite a number of players who are listed way above the transfer estimate).

It's been a while since I've actively read the forums here but after that Transfer Price Estimate feature got added, wasn't there a debate about it leading to precisely this problem, i.e. managers repetitively listing players at the high end or greater of that range.

Also, I believe the intent of those values was to offer a guide, not to serve as a 100% accurate value for every player.

Yea you're right, it's just a guide. With too many parameters affecting a transfer, it's totally impossible to give out an accurate valuation for players. The closest you can get is to lump the similar ones in a category and put a range, which we already have.

I think listing them at the high end or slightly greater than that range isn't too bad. But a quick search on the TL for 18-19 year old MVP and above players will bring you across a number of players listed for 500k and their transfer estimate can even be low as 80k. There are even ones who are listed for 2m to 3m when their transfer estimates are all below 500k. Makes me imagine how many people actually bother with the feature - it doesn't look like it's worth improving on since it appears like hardly anyone uses it.

In the end, in order to discourage ridiculous price fishing, which can also affect NTs/U21s, especially those of micronations, there is no feasible way without some sort of limitation. I mean, back in the past we had that "players must stay in a team for at least 4 days before they can be resold" rule implemented to limit day trading, so it's not impossible for such a thing to be implemented. Maybe a "player must wait for 4 days before being relisted" rule would help.

Thanks for taking time to elaborate and sorry if I sounded rude. It's just that along with the ironic "scroll down" suggestion, I was afraid I'd be called "fun at parties" by taking you seriously (sorry it happens pretty often on social media so I'm just being wary). But now I can see where you're coming from.

That said, while you personally believe that the game design should always place considerations about NT and U21 far below managers' own teams, you won't be able to change the fact that there have been changes in the past involving NTs in the past (I think one of them involved NTs and free agency). While removing the NT feature won't affect most of the users in BB, but it's a fact that NTs affect a number of things on the level of "personal teams" like merchandise and sale price. So as much as you dislike it, the what happens at NT level can still be taken into account and it's definitely not going to be shelved like the All Star Week.

Continually fiddling with extra taxes, or listing fees, or whatever isn't going to do squat to address them.

You weren't here long enough to know this, but quite some years ago, it was possible to transfer list players right after purchasing them, and day trading was pretty rampant. To address this (yes BB actually took action against flipping approaches), the game devs prevented players from being listed for 4 days after they got purchased. While it didn't entirely curb day trading, but it did make day trading less profitable. Same thing applies here - I'm not looking to completely prevent people from relisting their players or fish for absurd prices, but to make it so that the impact is smaller.

So not only is there a precedence where BBs actually took action against flipping, they put a restriction to it, and it worked. So what basis do you have for your claim?

I do not believe that a case has been made that the listing/continually relisting players is causing a competitive imbalance that requires an additional mechanic to disincentivize it.

Fair enough, I get where you're coming from.

I agree this thing also effects whole transfer list economy - because lots of managers are not very good financial "experts" so they just look at similar players listed, but when we have these "business teams" prices are very overpriced usually and it's goes on and on. THIS SHOULD BE CONTROLED.

I've already made this suggestion 2 or 3 times:

Every time a player is not sold, the fees increase. An example, if you sell a player that you have in your roster since a long time you will get 97% of the price. if he's not sold, my suggestion is to decrease 97% to 92%. Then 87%, 82%,...

Joe

From everything I read in this thread, this was the best suggestion, IMO