BuzzerBeater Forums

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.

Please, don´t change my arguments. I didn´t say that. You can use as much time as you want in the game. I didn´t propose any time limitation for the game. In fact, you should spend more game time in reading carefully, other way you are replying to your own version of the arguments and not to the real ones.

I said that daytrading is the result of people who can spend a lot of time in the market, compared to those who don´t. I just tried to find the cause of daytrading, because here people are trying to find a solution for this.

The idea is to give a % of the transfer money of a player, back to the manager who trained the player. Just as in HT you get some money when your former players are sold. The more time you have a player in your team, the more money (%) you get. And thus, the money is not going out of the game as with the current market tax, training will be worth compared to trading. I´m talking about a good % of the transfer coming back to the manager who trained the player (higher than in HT).



Last edited by Emilio at 3/15/2008 8:29:56 AM

I want to have the chance of training a rookie and sell him when he is good enough, or keep him when he boosters my team.

Nothing about my proposal changes this.

If you are going to keep a draftee and train him, fine. However, you have limited training spots, so you will have to replace one of your current trainees with a new draftee. Sell the old trainee; keep the draftee. You cannot do both.

As a practical matter, I find myself training 4 players at full time (48 or more minutes) and 2 at whatever is left over (24 to close to 48, depending on the weird choices of the substitution engine). So when 3 draftees come in, I have to decide which of the three draftees is worth training, and which of the current trainees will have to be sold off for whatever the market will bring.

It almost seems like a silly question when people ask about what to do when they reach their proposed roster limits.

Are you people telling us that you have the organizational skills to manage day trading but not enough to manage a roster? I doubt that is what you mean, but it is kind of sounding like it.

If you don't have room adjust your roster....just like every real team has to do.

I do think that a higher roster limit makes sense for BB purposes. I was thinking somewhere around 18-20 with a higher limit in the off season, maybe even as high as 22-25. (Although 16-18 and 20-22 would work as well)

This allows plenty of flexibility. It should even allow for decent profit to be made on the market, it just doesn't allow day trading to dominate the game.

Sounds like a good idea.

I think 18 players would be good solution.