BuzzerBeater Forums

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.

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.

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.

There are already good measures in place to limit rent-a-player. You buy a player at 100%, have to keep him for at least 1 week paying his salary then when you go to sell him a week or 3 later you only get 80-83% of the commission. I think this is a good measure to limit but not eliminate rent-a-players. It's usually an expensive, money losing proposition. One more measure I would likely endorse is moving the transfer deadline back about 1-2 weeks so that you can't add a guy just in time for the 1st playoff game. Then teams would have to pay these salaries for a longer period increasing the penalty.

But I don't really think finding the right algorithm to work here would be difficult, they've already got them in place for the rest of our economy. Make money? Go ahead and buy expensive players. Dont' make money? Sorry, you'll have to wait until you do.

I'm actually surprised that you're on the other side of this argument here, I noticed that you added your 2 high salaried players after you won D3 and that your highest salary on that team was $41000. Obviously you get the end goal here and understand that you don't need to buy 1 expensive stud to promote through divisions. ;)

Last edited by Beener not Beanerz at 8/29/2012 1:03:28 PM

Just some suggestions:
* You are only allowed to buy players with e.g. twice your TV income. Last season in division II I had 120k in TV money and more than a 240k guy would not make sense for me to have in the team. To base what you can on TV income would stop new teams from overspending on monsters. It would also stop them from renting a player to advance to a higher division where they again needs to do similar move due to their temporal strength.

* Only free agents on the market will be players with caps for their countries national or U21 team. I think that it would be better to raise the transfer price for players with a lower availability of high grade players. This approach probably would need to be done gradually as lowering the demand of players too much might cause economic imbalance.

* To stop the rent a guy phenomenon I would suggest both that you need to have money to cover salaries for three weeks and that you need to keep the player for at least 3 weeks. Renting a guy less than three weeks ahead of playoffs would basically mean that you must keep the player until you are out of it. Of course causes a problem. I don't really like the idea of forcing a player to stay in team for that long but it might be better than current system.

Just some thoughts.