BuzzerBeater Forums

Find me a 100k salary guard that you can buy for 1 milion,and I surely would buy him next time

I believe he means a transfer price of 100k, train them until you can sell them for a transfer price of 1million. Then use the funds from there.

In the medium time also this strategy is unefficient in my eyes,since to reach a good sum of money like 3 milions to buy a single top class level you should use 3 entire seasons for 3 trainees,sell them and buy 1 player,leaving the team with holes in rotation where the 3 trainees previously played.You have a virtual profit in your transfer history page,but probably not in your roster team page

Find me a 100k salary guard that you can buy for 1 milion,and I surely would buy him next time

I believe he means a transfer price of 100k, train them until you can sell them for a transfer price of 1million. Then use the funds from there.

In the medium time also this strategy is unefficient in my eyes,since to reach a good sum of money like 3 milions to buy a single top class level you should use 3 entire seasons for 3 trainees,sell them and buy 1 player,leaving the team with holes in rotation where the 3 trainees previously played.You have a virtual profit in your transfer history page,but probably not in your roster team page

I gotta say Steve that your arguments are really weak and its ok to man up and confess to being wrong once in a while (hell even I do it occasionally!)

There is no way even with deflation you cant find 3-4 trainees at 500k-1mil and turn them around for 2mil, 1.5 seasons later.

If a manager has 3mil and cant turn that into 5mil over a season whether that be on 1 trainee or 3 then you are not going to climb the ladder - you will simply be passed by those that can and will do this.

Last edited by Superfly Guy at 10/20/2010 12:28:27 PM

There is no way even with deflation you cant find 3-4 trainees at 500k-1mil and turn them around for 2mil, 1.5 seasons later.

so,in 4,5 season,working in this way,you would have 6 milions,that you can use to buy 3 very good players,right
During these seasons,spending for trainees with good potential(perennial allstar/superstar) 1-1,5M for every trainee(let's say 5 M in tola)you can train 3 good players good as the previous three,and you can also choose how to develop them

Do I miss some count?

Last edited by Steve Karenn at 10/20/2010 12:47:50 PM

Can anyone explain when the $500 k threshold for bankrupcy kicks in?

Hypothetical with a few away games in a row starting next week my bank balance will soon drop from -130K to -550k before my merchandise and tv money boosts my balance back upto approximately -400K on the same day.

Will this trigger the 500K threshold for bankrupcy or is the 500k figure only breached after merchandise and tv money is considered?

The answer to this will affect my plans as I can trade my way back out of debt without selling players but would sell one now if I knew that I was going to start the ticking bankrupcy clock

As always sell a few fringe players off prior to the finals

Sid

Last edited by Sid Vicious at 10/21/2010 8:21:06 AM

What is taking into account is your balance before the economic update.
Try to use help forums for these questions, please

Players worry about spending because they have only a few trophies available to them. League + Cup.
If there was a BB3 equivalent for all Division 2 winners or Division 3 winners (Division 4/5 would be too many teams) - this would encourage promotion and also you would imagine encourage more teams to fiercely compete at all costs.

I really, really like the idea of more competitions. Back in the small fish/big fish debate I originally brought up that I would like to see other shadow tournaments to the B3. To take it even further, there is still room for more competitors in the B3 (hence the fact that some teams get a 1st round bye).

So how to fill the spots for the B3? First, I would not re-invite past winners of the B3. Just because they win it one year does not mean anything about future years.

Then, continue with the cup and league winners making it. Fill the remaining spots through world ranking. And if at some point the # of winners gets too large, drop teams with the lowest world ranking.

As for the shadow tournament(s), those spots could be filled once again using world ranking.

I know that the world ranking has some issues. But that could also be worked on. ;-)

- I've seen several comments about free agents. The point of free agency is to try and reach this equilibrium as quickly as possible. Would prices go up with fewer free agents? Yes, but only artificially; it would mean a longer period of slower deflation to get to the same place.

I'm going to play devil's advocate here and say this: what if free agency actually prevents you from hitting equilibrium? I remember the last time free agency was removed - there was a massive economic boom. The price spike was so large you even had to bring players back from retirement in order to calm the market.

On the other hand, I assume that you are already thinking about what you want the equilibrium to be and have already planned a slow exit from free agency.

In any case, I would welcome a debate of whether or not an influx of new users would change the market conditions. I can't imagine how changes like that would not have an impact. But that's just the thing, I have trouble imagining this "equilibrium", I am sure there will always be unexpected market reactions that will make it impossible to ever fully reach it.

We plan BuzzerBeater for the long term; we're trying to create a game that will hold up over many, many seasons, and that means reaching equilibrium sooner and letting the game evolve from there. We have also tried our best to make sure we informed people about what was coming; we've been talking about a price bubble for around 8 seasons now in news posts and explaining that it was temporary.

I am also wondering - what is the hurry to hit this equilibrium? To me it feels like a lot of short term pain for a very limited long term gain. It seems to be creating a lot of negativity around the community in the present and the gains seem dubious. Or at the very least in a future that many users here may not stick around to see.

But really, my beef all boils down to this. What I really, really don't like about the current market conditions is they reward users who tank. I read your explanation before for not doing anything about "zero rostered" teams (or teams that are close to it). However, those reasons assume a constant market. In a deflationary market, selling all or almost all your players is the optimal strategy for long term success. In that context, the game becomes about teams that can figure out the best ways to lose. And timing the market becomes more important than actually playing the game.

Last edited by HeadPaperPusher at 10/26/2010 12:31:57 PM