BuzzerBeater Forums

Great story! I would like to train a player like that in the future. Things like that are the reason this game has soul :) I'm playing some football(soccer) manager on facebook, it's quite fun, but you have to change players every month or two. There is no continuity whatsoever, no long term projects to keep you interested.

Also, what I like about this game, it's not a pay-to-win, a lot of games online have options to buy player skills or recover from injuries or just buy game money..

How could this ever work?

Do you how many times something like this situation happens:

Team A has $1,500,000 in the bank and a weekly econ revenue of $60,000. Doing OK.
Team A wants to buy a great SF and gets one for $1,460,000. Whew, just enough to get him by outbidding 1 other manager. The SF's salary is $90,000.
Team A cash now equals just $40,000 and weekly econ revenue is now -$30,000.
Team A can only afford his salary for 1 week, so in your system Team A cannot bid for him.
Even if Team A was ready to sell a crappier SF who costs $50,000 and would put the weekly econ revenue back up to $20,000 after one update.

It probably happens a lot.

We all don't have bank accounts of $10,000,000.

Pay 4 weeks of salary UP FRONT when buying a player? Coding would be a nightmare, so BBs will never do it, but well, it would prevent someone who can't afford a player from buying him and put an end to renting for sure (unless its a 1 month rental and someone is willing to dump the cash)...

The cricket sim battrick I think had the right approach with this - when you purchased a player, you basically were guaranteeing his contract for seven weeks, so you couldn't sell (or I think even fire) the player until that time had elapsed. Seven may be a bit much here, but something like that for four weeks? I think that's certainly doable.

If you implemented something like that you couldn't go so before putting a cap on the types of salaries that lower divisions could purchase. Right now there's a fairly steady stream of new users that create economic problems by purchasing high priced but poorly built salary monsters on the transfer wire. If you forced those teams to live with their economic mistakes for an even longer period then bankruptcies would skyrocket.

Personally, I don't think this is a big enough problem that it needs a solution. The 7 day rule for owning a player is now in place after you buy a player and the gameshape hit is in place too.

Idk if this is a faux pas around here, but I think we can learn something from hattrick. Namely:

Letting supporters have a second team in any country - kind of discourages multi accounting (by making it legal) and should make the micronations more fun (there was push back in HT a bit, but I think it's working)

Of course, transactions and scrimmages between them should be disallowed

Also, as far as the LI domination goes, we won't be able to see if the current changes fix it for sometime, but imo the problem is that there are 2-3 defensive big skills and only 1 defensive guard skill. The easiest way to fix this is either to make OD slightly less effective (I heard that it was boosted a long time ago?) or to make it more expensive salary-wise. If you make someone with 19-20 OD have a similar salary with someone with 19-20 ID/SB/REB, there would be less super OD players. Another idea is to make a combination of OD and ID defend passing and steals? OD just seems too powerful if it is the only/main thing defending all of 3's, jump shots, passing, and handling.

Also, I think that ID should be used to draw charges (maybe against low driving players?), but idk if this is implemented already.

Last edited by tictacshack at 8/29/2013 5:22:00 PM

Well this was originally suggested like two years ago, do you still think ANYTHING will happen?