BuzzerBeater Forums

I understand your idea, and it is not bad at all (from my point of view), as it balances the asymmetric money distribution between the manager who trained the player and the manager who daytraded with him.
At the end, it is a way to make daytraders work for all of us!

i.e. I sell a player, the bid ends at 7.00am, a daytrader takes my player for 10k, and immediately sells him for 200k at a better time (weekend maybe, 8.00pm). Applying your idea I would receive 50% of the money (100k) and I finally get 110k and the daytrader also gets 100k for the work of getting up early and the wear of his eyes. ;-)

Last edited by Emilio at 3/14/2008 2:38:49 PM

You are in full control of the listing price (and in a partial control of listing time, too).

Of course you can take stronger decisions against daytraders,
but you can also have a stronger opposition from people.
And finally you are not sure whether this strong influence on the market would assure to stop daytraders without any other worse side effects.

I don´t think is a good idea to discard ideas without further discussion... give us at least a reason or comment about it or just don´t say anything.

Of course you can take stronger decisions against daytraders,
but you can also have a stronger opposition from people.
And finally you are not sure whether this strong influence on the market would assure to stop daytraders without any other worse side effects.

I don´t think is a good idea to discard ideas without further discussion... give us at least a reason or comment about it or just don´t say anything.

I am not discarding ideas. But when people suggest something along these lines, they forget that managers here are supposed to manage their team.

This of course includes making decisions about when to list players, and more importantly - at what price. I think it is counterproductive to let people be able to get away with poor business decisions -- looking at the issue conceptually, the problem with daytrading is not that the original seller is losing money. This is entirely in his control, so he must really be kicking himself. The problem occurs when the trader is allowed to make unchecked profits and make an egregious amount of money without any real penalties.

I think that even without doing anything right now, the situation will get better as the game expands and more good players are offered on the transfer market. But a penalty on in-game performance because of excessive trading and/or having too many players on the roster is a necessity, I think.

Good. That is much better ;-)
Now we can discuss (always friendly).

I agree with your opinion about that it is maybe not so good to give money for bad decisions of the managers.

But first, it is not always a bad decision of the manager. Sometimes just a lack of time, sometimes you are living in Australia or any country far away from most of the BB users. I think a good online game should not require 8 hours per day to be suscessful.

Second, daytrading mainly depends on buying at the right moment and selling a the better time to sell. That's a wise strategy, good decisions of a manager, why should we stop him? (following your logic).

Of course, because it is not good for the game.

The best solution should be directed against the cause of the problem and not just to limit the consequences.

I think the origin of daytrading is that some managers without any game time limitation take profit of other managers (much more) with no time, no experience or any other limitation, and also in the case of BB they take profit of the unstable market of a young game.

When the game gets older, the market should stabilized and the problem will be less. But as other similar games, it will always suffer the excessive prevail of the market over the game strategy.

Therefore, the idea of giving a big amount of money to the seller would attack the problem at the root.
But of course, any other idea to make strategy more important than market is welcome for the long-term health of the game. In this sense your idea about in-game performance penalties is completely right.

I hope it helps. Sorry for the length.

Last edited by Emilio at 3/14/2008 4:30:31 PM

Concerning the argument that daytrading favors those with a lot of time: do you really think that acquiring great tactical knowledge takes no time? Any time spent online brings some sort of advantage.

So I have the final solution for any injustice in the system: no manager is allowed more than 30 minutes a week online. Otherwise it is very unfair that he/she can spend such a long time on reading the rules, reading help pages, making line-ups and so on and so forth or whatsoever. Edit: or daytrading or hiring staff or other ugly things.

Amen!

Last edited by Pallu at 3/14/2008 6:31:17 PM

with such a irony... But I really liked that one (= would be funny (=

And finally the solution would be just give each team 18 transfers per season (=for normally managed team that would be more then enough....

Limiting daytrading is not about 'making both owners happy'. It is about preventing the accumulation of excessive profits by trading teams.

Can you explain excessive profits to Americans, like me... :-)


Steve
Bruins


Last edited by Solana_Steve at 3/14/2008 6:55:21 PM

Limiting daytrading is not about 'making both owners happy'. It is about preventing the accumulation of excessive profits by trading teams.

Can you explain excessive profits to Americans, like me... :-)

You have to use your judgement on that.

Right now, just about anything is excessive, ,since there is no real trade-off -- trading doesn't harm your team in any way.

ok how about a profit share to the former owner, like this, if a bought player gets resold within a season, the former manager gets 50% of the tradeprice, that would make daytrades nearly impossible?

or the former owner gets 50% of the profit, that might would make both sides happy and the former team does not loose much if a player might gone for a to low price and daytraders would have more friends coz they make profit not only for themselfes no more, like everybody is happy when a daytrader bought their players?

That's what I was referring to. I meant that the goal of daytrade measures is not making the original seller happy. Everyone is responsible for their own decision for the listing price.

Plus, a similar structure is already in place -- you only get 80% of the transfer value for immediately reselling a player.

Obviously, this 80% is not enough. It should be downed to 50%. Let's say 50% if you sell the player within a week, 60% is you sell between a week and 2 weeks, 70% between 2 and 3, 75% between 3 and 4, 80% between 4 and 5.
Maybe that would make a difference and we would not see anybody buying a player to sell him immediatly after. They would be forced to keep them at least a few weeks.

Having a significant penalty such as 20% after week 5 is not good at all. In 5 weeks, one can provide a significant training (3-4 levels, depending on the player).

80% is not a bad figure once there are enough agents to provide a flexible market, where bargains would be less common. As of now, though, this is not the case, unfortunately.