BuzzerBeater Forums

BB Global (English) > 225k player bought for 17k ???

225k player bought for 17k ???

Set priority
Show messages by
This Post:
00
223760.68 in reply to 223760.67
Date: 8/28/2012 3:49:08 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
952952
Great, great post. I've never looked at it this way. BBs should read that.

This Post:
44
223760.69 in reply to 223760.67
Date: 8/28/2012 5:22:43 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
55315531
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.

This Post:
00
223760.70 in reply to 223760.67
Date: 8/29/2012 7:20:05 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
299299
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

This Post:
00
223760.71 in reply to 223760.70
Date: 8/29/2012 8:09:29 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
455455
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?

This Post:
00
223760.72 in reply to 223760.71
Date: 8/29/2012 9:23:30 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
299299
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.

This Post:
00
223760.73 in reply to 223760.72
Date: 8/29/2012 9:48:08 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
32293229
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.

This Post:
00
223760.74 in reply to 223760.72
Date: 8/29/2012 11:03:54 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
455455
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

This Post:
00
223760.75 in reply to 223760.74
Date: 8/29/2012 11:30:12 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
299299
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.

This Post:
00
223760.77 in reply to 223760.76
Date: 8/29/2012 12:11:24 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
455455

I agree about teh problem, but not sure there is any solution but to stop the FA nonsense.


I disagree that there's no solution.

Just link team revenues with the salary of the players that team is allowed to bid on. For example, if your team revenue is under $300,000 a week then you can't bid on a $200,000 salary player. If you're under $200,000 a week then you can't bid on a $100,000 player. Or something along those lines. If a brand new team is going to buy high salaried players before he builds his arena up to create revenue, he's immediately limited to the type of player he can buy and therefore he won't kill his economy by adding a high salaried monster.

These are just rough ideas but they wouldn't be difficult to implement.

Advertisement