BuzzerBeater Forums

yes, but if it wasn't for the first, the second wasn't nessecary ?

If they do not release free agents, potential isn't realy needed because fewer players will be able to grow real tall...

See what I mean?

Now with the potential, they might need to release free Agents to be able to get 'some' real good players.
;)

I wonder if they will release free agents if they have a Potential below 'Star' if their salary is high enough, because they will not do what the Free Agents-thing was supposed to do anyway.

yes, but if it wasn't for the first, the second wasn't nessecary ?

Not true.

The fact that players disappear does not dictate anything about the distribution of player skills.

Imagine the game had only 10 players. Without potential, all of them could be trained to an all-time great level. Imagine this happens. Then no matter how many players get released, the whole 'field' still contains only all-time great level players.

With potential, you have maybe 1 all-time greats, 2 MVPs, 3 stars and 4 role-players, figuratively speaking. If they're all trained to the maximum, the game will prevent the best players, but since this particular level of potential comes about rarely the situation is controlled much better, because the game generates much more low-potential guys. So it's a natural pyramid.

Last edited by GM-kozlodoev at 5/12/2008 1:09:26 PM

well.. no because we only release the top level players releasing free agents does flatten the distribution to some extent. However, I think releasing free agents is still a good idea in that it gives us a handle on supply and demand that we can manipulate instantaneously as opposed to player creation which would really take a long time to have an effect. I think of it like the Fed with interest rates... in order to help guide the economy we need instruments like that. Now I don't think we (or the Fed for that matter) always knows what the right approach to twisting the handle is.. but I don't think having potential means we should abolish free agents even if they do act in opposition to some extent. After all the number of free agents is smaller than the number of players in the game so it can't wash out the effect of potential all together.

You're preaching to the choir here, Forrest

Last edited by GM-kozlodoev at 5/12/2008 4:49:11 PM

when it comes to these economy debates, i'd rather support milton friedman

Supply and Demand will even out in the long run, since there will not be any opportunity in the long run, that you can make money better than in other ways - since if there is, everyone would and hence the price dumping would begin again.

I've been trying to figure out the liquitity (spelling? english isnt my first language, study economics in switzerland ;)) - and honestly, except maybe at 3-5 o'clock in the morning, the market is quite complete when it comes to a decent level of skill.

When thinking about the way that Guards need to be trained, requiring more time in order for them to look good (and be good), it's an interfearence with the market, if there is unnatural supply of a kind, that needs 2-3 month training in a team.
Of course this would mean, that the price in midseason would be rather high, due having low supply, but then again.. the player selling his jewel, also wants to get some money of it, in order to get some nice replacements for his existing mediocore players .. understand what i mean? E.g. i train Guards and buy PF/Centers - i ll be needing those 500-600k in the middle of the season when selling one of my trainees to actually UPGRADE my inside team which cost over 250k each.. atm, but a serious upgrade will be maybe one for 450-500k.

Well, i am sure you guys know what to do, but i think it's important to get a qualified feedback from the community.


Last edited by shades236 at 5/12/2008 5:19:56 PM

when it comes to these economy debates, i'd rather support milton friedman

Supply and Demand will even out in the long run, since there will not be any opportunity in the long run, that you can make money better than in other ways - since if there is, everyone would and hence the price dumping would begin again.

I've been trying to figure out the liquitity (spelling? english isnt my first language, study economics in switzerland ;)) - and honestly, expect maybe at 3-5 o'clock in the morning, the market is quite complete when it comes to a decent level of skill.

When thinking about the way that Guards need to be trained, requiring more time in order for them to look good (and be good), it's an interfearence with the market, if there is unnatural supply of a kind, that needs 2-3 month training in a team.
Of course this would mean, that the price in midseason would be rather high, due having low supply, but then again.. the player selling his jewel, also wants to get some money of it, in order to get some nice replacements for his existing mediocore players .. understand what i mean? E.g. i train Guards and buy PF/Centers - i ll be needing those 500-600k in the middle of the season when selling one of my trainees to actually UPGRADE my inside team which cost over 250k each..

Well, i am sure you guys know what to do, but i think it's important to get a qualified feedback from the community.

In the long run, we're all dead.

Player markets in games like this suffer from inefficiencies of all sorts, especially because it takes a significant amount of time for the supply side to adjust: training a specific player is to train him for multiple seasons, and once he's on the market, he is bound to drive the market price down until someone fires him, or he ages naturally. The first is not likely to happen; the second might take even more seasons.

edit: Incidentally, Hattrick provided a pretty recent example why player supply should be controlled, rather than left to the invisible hand.

Last edited by GM-kozlodoev at 5/12/2008 5:21:51 PM

In the long run, we're all dead.

John Maynard Keynes FTW

In the long run, we're all dead.

John Maynard Keynes FTW

Yup

Last edited by GM-kozlodoev at 5/12/2008 5:45:26 PM

I am not against some controll, but i wouldnt think it is correct to shoot in "good" players, just because there arent many around - shoot in good trainees, imo.

I am not against some controll, but i wouldnt think it is correct to shoot in "good" players, just because there arent many around - shoot in good trainees, imo.

The current system is doing both. In the sense that good players are drafted each season, not that high-potential players are listed

However, providing a trainee with good potential doesn't provide you with a good player. Potential only matters if a player reaches it. And even if he does, it's not instantaneous. As I mentioned, it takes multiple seasons.


Last edited by GM-kozlodoev at 5/12/2008 6:01:40 PM

you already had a limited set of points to assign to a player, it was simply dictated by the amount of time you have to train that player.

So most of the top players now have 85-95 points distributed amongst their skills at the moment.... (inc. stamina/ft)

Will reaching the top prevent us to train the Stamina/FT too? and I assume (not expecting an answer - but interested on other opinions) that the point cap for Allstar is pretty much there?