BuzzerBeater Forums

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

You have, however, explained what is going on very well.

I really don't see a direct problem with these high salaried players being sold for peanuts. It's happening because they're bad investments.

The market dictates the selling price and in some cases, these high salaried players simply aren't considered worth purchasing by the high ranking teams that can afford them. This is primarily due to age, bad training/builds many years ago and now the market is flooded with guys like this. That's the simple reality. Start BuzzerBeater over again from season 1 and it would almost certainly run into a problem again because the market would eventually end up at this point.

Personally, I see a much different problem. Because these players can be had for cheap, new managers to the game such as the one that started this thread think that they're stealing a high price bargain when in fact they're simply killing the economics of their team and fast-tracking bankruptcy. I wonder how many new users will be lost to BB because of this? And how is the game going to grow or even continue if it keeps losing new users?

It's not much different that professional sports where the owners need to put rules into the collective bargaining agreements to save them from themselves because they can't control their own spending without them. In this case, I think that rules need to be put into place to keep new owners from bidding on these high salaried players. A rule could be put in place where unless you weekly revenue level is at a certain level, you can't bid on a player with a salary above $XXX.

This will serve 2 purposes, it will weed out these high salaried players into retirement putting more balance in the market and it will save newer teams from extinction.





Last edited by Beener not Beanerz at 8/27/2012 12:21:55 PM

Great, great post. I've never looked at it this way. BBs should read that.

In Hattrick you have to pay the salaries of your players the moment you buy them, not some days later. You cannot even bid on a player whose salary you cannot afford. I don't know why the BBs didn't implement it like this.

It would be tough to determine who could and couldn't afford the cost of these players. Some people don't mind going temporarily into debt.

Last edited by Axis123 at 8/29/2012 7:21:21 AM

No it wouldn't. If you have a low income, you can't afford a $200,000 player and you'd be absolutely foolish to add one to your roster. For every one low income owner that doesn't go bankrupt adding such a player I'll bet that 30-50 do go bankrupt. So the end result would be worth it anyways.

Funny, I reached D1 and the most expensive player on my roster at the time was paid $101,000. So tell me why would a D4 or D5 team need a $200,000 player again?

I don't know what it's like in Canada (love the country by the way), but here in Oz there are a few leagues that, in order to promote, teams (including myself a while back) have had to go far beyond what their income allows for.

So, yes it would.

I don't know what it's like in Canada (love the country by the way), but here in Oz there are a few leagues that, in order to promote, teams (including myself a while back) have had to go far beyond what their income allows for.

So, yes it would.

No, a 200k+ player still is not a good option for lower teams (other than perhaps in targeted cases as playoff donkey rentals). Needing to carry better players and having more salary because of it is of course a condition of progress in some leagues, but there are far better ways of doing it than having that much of your team's salary tied up in a single player. You'd probably be better off with two 75k big men than a single 200k one, for example, even assuming they're all just as useless with secondary skills.

Since both of our countries have a very similar # of active teams I can say with almost 100% certainty that you're thinking down the wrong direction here.

It obviously depends on where that line is drawn but after watching this game for a few seasons now I'm convinced it's a terrible strategy that leads to bankruptcy far more often than promotion.

I'm not talking about buying a $50-100,000 player that is worth far more than everyone else, but some of these donkey's are buying $200-$300,000 players. I can point you to several teams that are in the top 200 in the world that don't have a single $200,000 player on their roster so I'm very curious to know at what point did that become a completely necessary strategy to promote and succeed?

Anyways, my argument is not directed at you. It's directed primarily at newer users that are placed in D4 and D5 and don't understand the economics of the game.

Last edited by Beener not Beanerz at 8/29/2012 11:06:55 AM

my argument is not directed at you. It's directed primarily at newer users that are placed in D4 and D5 and don't understand the economics of the game.

I understand that. I've been playing for quite a while now and I've seen loads of users rent players with huge skills for short periods of time. Quite a few end up in dire straights over it, and some get lucky.

What I said earlier still stands. It would be difficult to find an algorithm to distinguish between a team that is smart enough to know what they're doing and someone who just doesn't know.

My opinion is to get rid of the rent-a-player tactic somehow. That would fix it quick smart.