BuzzerBeater Forums

As someone who made a significant amount of money throughout my time on BB using the TL, I have some questions...

Since there will be a lot of times where I see a player and go, you know what there's a low number of users (100 or less) on and this player seems to be going for a great rate, let me pick him up and if he doesn't fit I can get rid of him in a few weeks when the tax goes down to 70%ish and make some cash doing it since I listed at a time when there will be 1000+ users on.

Is this illegal on it's own, if so what part of it? Can I not use active and inactive times to get good deals and make returns?

Is this illegal only if a new team buys my player? Then in that case, it seems like my entire opportunity to profit hinges on a new user NOT interacting with my listing. Can I set my listing so that new players CANNOT bid on it so I can sell my listing at a profit instead of taking a loss just because they chose to interact?

Can I not list players at 3x their price I paid to test if the market has interest since some high level players have niche builds, or high salaries which to some may be worth nothing and to others millions?

I think this is a good idea when it relates to very specifically new accounts placing bids on players that were recently transferred and only that. Thus, take the subjective reporting aspect out of it entirely.

Proposed New Transfer List Rules
- Players purchased in the last 30 days cannot be relisted for more than 3x their value. (Minimum 100,000 auction price)
- Managers who created accounts in the last 30 days cannot place bids on players that were transferred and relisted on the TL in the last 30 days for more than what they were purchased for. (Minimum 100,000 auction price)

Include any other rules here that you would like, but simply limit users from making the transactions rather than fining them an unknown amount if someone reports them.

This fixes the issues you are having without it being a committee based subjective decision which requires user reporting to function. When possible fixes like these are better off as objective rules rather than a report based on vague or subjective rules.


Last edited by Apex at 5/9/2022 9:03:07 PM

100% no to this. If this is about protecting new users, place a limit on how high they can bid on a single player. Remove the subjectivity of market value and “objectively good deals”, because that can vary greatly from person to person.

The key of solving this problem is to educate new managers about the market rules, rather than to prevent managers from taking advantages of the experience accumulated for years.

If I saw a young player worth 300k on the market but selling for 3k, should I buy him? If I bought him, I have three options to avoid the violation:

1. Hold the player for more than one season, or
2. Sell the player for less than 15k (5x), even if he is worth 300k, or
3. Sell the player for more than 15k, but if the buyer is a new manager, I have to bid the player back so as not to violate the rules.

It is not make sense.

Last edited by 豹 at 5/9/2022 9:16:59 PM

If this is about protecting new users, place a limit on how high they can bid on a single player.

lol what. This is the worst idea ever. Would each new user, get a different limit? So new users couldn't outbid each other. Talk about a bad idea.

The hilarious thing about this is, all the people whining, now they are for exploiting others, and they are okay with that. /smdh

I hadn't seen 1 post about someone buying a "perceived" good value, and then training them, and then trying to release them back into the market. That's why I agree with the BB's decision. You'll on the side of easy money, the discourages people from sticking around. IF I played a game, where I was ripped off, because I didn't see the big picture, I wouldn't want to become a supporter, let alone waste my time on a game, that lets vets rip off newbs.

edited to fix the quote box

Last edited by WFUnDina at 5/9/2022 9:45:13 PM

This is doable in an objective way. Putting market limits removes the BB's subjectivity and the need for a report. Even now many purchases go unreported and BB's have given terribly inconsistent fines over the years.

If that’s the worst idea ever then you’ve at most ever seen three ideas.

The OP’s idea leaves way too much room for subjectivity. That needs to be lessened as a form or policing in the game, not increased.

This is doable in an objective way. Putting market limits removes the BB's subjectivity and the need for a report. Even now many purchases go unreported and BB's have given terribly inconsistent fines over the years.

So then it becomes, 1st come 1st wins?

No because it would reference the starting auction price. Not the bids on top of it.

Either way, the idea being that rules can be created objectively. Fine tuning can always be done to them as more suggestions roll out, but in general this is the correct way to implement market restrictions.

I guess it is only fair to lower the listing price of fired, and/or abandoned players. Although some of these players are still good, they are not worth their listed price.

It's a game. If you're unexperienced then you make mistakes, and place unexperienced bids. It is just like real life.

Market should be more on the free side not on the regulatory side.

Plus "above market rates" is a clumsy description. We all know, for example, players are much more expensive before playoff deadline, or beginning of new season. So it varies also on the moment of the season that you list your player. It's really superficial to say player X got bought for 1k and sold for 100k, it's just not enough information, and certainly not something you can easily and fairly regulate.

Not to mention you can buy a youngster mid season, train him(change his value completely) and sell him beginning of next season for more money. How would you even quantify that?