BuzzerBeater Forums

There is nothing wrong with the economy, just the value weight has shifted a little. I watch the market constantly (it helps me to report fishy transfers) and great players still sell for a lot. Perhaps people are getting smarter (with less money moving around they actually look what they are buying), you can't sell "JS only" players for the same amount that you would sell same salary all around player. I am absolutely sure you will get more from a fully (and evenly) trained allstar player than 700k. You are just pulling these numbers out of the hat.
What comes to these extreme salary NT players. That's just the side effect of farm teams. I think these players should not even exist as I think farming for one player is not playing to win, but everyone plays how they want to play (still I think most of the farming is done by experienced managers second account, hard to prove I know). But I do think that buying a 400k week salary player for 2-3mil is normal as they strain your economy more (with theyr high primarys and 5 atrocius skills), than a equally trained player.
Obviously this game has a salary limit, just like nba has the max limit on luxury tax. You can't have salarys over that. The best manager will be the one who can get the best players within that range, is the best tactician and can manage entusiasm. As BB's have stated the economy is near equlibrium, they are fine tuning it every season. When they feel the game has overfloated with good players, they just need to switch off the free agents and the prices will normalise.
At the moment perhaps you need to rethink your training strategy. If you want to make money perhaps you should buy that 20yo player with decent skills and train him for couple of seasons and then sell him for profit. I still think that evenly trained players get sold for a lot on the market. Every time I see one of them pop up at the market they go for 2mil+. The same salary JS, Driving players still linger on the market week after week, at the same starting price of 1,2mil or so. People are getting smarter and are spending on overall value of the player not just 1-3 skills.
I think any team should consist of 5 SF's with different skill weightings depending on the position you want him to play.

Last edited by Kukoc at 7/19/2010 12:21:02 PM

Yawn

The economy has nose-dived and faster than threads in global being locked down.. the lifetime supporter might as well be for the first person that can buy an U25 triple sensational for less than 1 mil.... least the prize would be given away sooner rather than later.

When 3,000 managers leave every week and 3,000 enter (approx figures) I'd imagine this is demonstrating the game is failing to keep the newest sign ups... why? well the english help forum is desolate considering the number of new sign ups. (ok so the sticky threads help but you have to imagine they'd be more questions that should be being asked) - medium term managers may even be basing there decision on whether to stick with the game based on their early experiences. If they have trained for 3-4 seasons and now barely cover costs when they come to sell, who would blame them for being disheartened and moving on?

I know its all relative and you dont need to preach to the converted - but elongated transfer fees ranging from 3-12million is far healthier than the 1-7 which the market has plummeted to in recent times. I'll await your mumbo jumbo response.

Nice post Superfly, it sums up my feelings exactly.

The one thing I do not like about these relativistic arguments: if you sold players last season or the season before and just kept your money, you would be in a very good situation right now. And if the game is about to experience some sort of boom, and you can somehow manage to predict it, it is probably a very good time to become a day trader.

I do not like it when you can make money by predicting market trends. This game is already too market driven in my opinion. Of course, maybe I am biased, I have never really been good at playing the BB market.

I also hate the fact that the changes have pretty much destroyed training profits. One of my favorite parts of the game used to be training players to make money.

You can yawn all you like, but we all know who get's hit the most with transfer prices being between 1-7mil rather than 3-12mil. The day (week) traders and to me that is a great thing. With lower transfer prices, you take a bigger risk with buying low and trying to sell high. Paying salary for those odd weeks of trying to transfer the player and paying tax on the sell.
There will always be enthusiastic new comers and leavers (whether they never planned to play, failed to understand or got bored). There are people who can't handle defeat, thus stop playing the game when they relegate from the 1-st div (where they had been since season 3). Why? Because they could not compete with managers that are playing exactly the same game with exactly the same rules. Some can adapt, some can't.
What exactly are people training players for? Selling??? They should train for theyr own team, you can't expect to train JS for 5 players and sell them now for huge profits. If you have done that, then obviously you have made the wrong choise. Now on the other hand, if you have trained 5 players to keep (spread out skills evenly) you can keep 2-3 of those as starters and sell 2 of them to buy 2 similarly skilled players to those 2 positions that need filling. If the selling prices are down then obviously the buying prices are down aswell. So you still get your moneys worth.
What do you propose, raise the income of teams? What do we gain? Everyones income raises -> thus making the top teams even harder target to catch up (for a fresh starting team)? No! We are moving in the right direction.
Like I have stated before, I watch the transfer list a lot. I do not day trade (just because I do not feel daytrading is good for the game and has really no place in basketball) and think we need more restricions to that, but it seems to be a strategy BB's would like to keep, so I have learned to deal with it.
So that's my mumbo jumbo responce.

Last edited by Kukoc at 7/19/2010 4:12:31 PM

In my opinion,there are three main questions on the economy,all connected among them

1-Best teams can't afford the best players...but not only the "farm players",they'can't afford a starting line-up with all 150k players,if they want to have a positive wekly balance(without cup and BBB,for sure)

2-The prices of the players with higher salaries,also if they aren't at the "farm levels",falls down,especially for the centers,so who have spend many time to train them,will have few money for their sacrifices,also in terms of results in all the competitions,and consequentely economical sacrifices.And with a chain reaction,falls down drammatically also the prices of all the playes,so every team is knocked by this situation

3-In many lower leagues,the level of incomes are too low for the competitivity reached by the leagues;if you see a II/III division of the greatest countries in BB,you can see that they have to afford great expenses not to win the league,but only to REMAIN in the league,and don't lose much money from a relegation in a lower division,where you are not sure to rise up again quickly...and theoretically these teams should buy the players of high level on the market,the players who aren't at the top level but are close to them,so diminuishing the money available on the market

There could be a solution,and it would be to reward the competitivity of the various leagues and of the various teams of the various leagues,in a greater way than with the TV contract(and merchandising) system...If you want to reach an economic balance,you can't give different possibilities to all the users,often penalizing the most skilled players that have less money to improve their teams and to fight in their countries...the weakest leagues quickly would be spurred to do better and better,so rising the incomes and the level of competitivity of their leagues...and more competitive is a league,lesser are the chances for a team to win all the games,so there wll not happen a risk of a never-ending rise of the incomes...

So that's my mumbo jumbo responce.

You miss my point on the transfer ranges entirely.
The market has matured because the userbase has matured. The average manager knows more about the skill-sets than 5 seasons ago, and more often than not knows exactly what he wants to go shopping for and because of the supply knows he can wait to pick up the player of his choice in most instances.

The key difference and level we haven't reached yet (and maybe we'll never get there) is new teams rarely train the ultimate player - with survival or advancement more a priority, their training decisions are to create players in the short term that can immediately impact (not saying everyone) and the quality of the trainees they start with even if trained perfectly still wont reach the requirements of most Div 1 teams so with this in mind, money doesnt flow freely.

IF we had more money then the truly best players in the market would fetch the really big $$ and the reward for training properly could be witnessed by everyone and in turn maybe have a knock on effect to the market. How many SG's dont have enough passing? How many big men don't have enough handling? If the established teams educate the training clubs by rewarding them with much more cash for training more efficiently this will improve the economy from the grass-roots. The current players not attracting the interest of anyone, still won't and should discourage other users from falling into the trap to train similar players - the flipside is in my opinion obvious - create the perfect player get paid significantly more and at this time thats just not happening.

Wages are partly to blame and if the BB's want to keep the same level players at the same prices the only logical thing to do is slow down training speed (which I imagine won't be met favourably) - so what else? Back to injecting (within reason) more money into the system. If you dont want it at the top of the tree no problem, but then it wont filter down to the bottom. If you want to pump into the bottom then there will be a lot more wastage and no guarantee that the prices we see today will differ much at all.

Your admiral surveying of the TL is nothing until you pull the trigger and own/sell the players you are watching. You don't know whether the players that are being bought are short/long term acquisitions, being bought because there are no alternatives that are better or because the user doesnt spend much time online and therefore has to buy when he sees someone. It's like saying you are a lifeguard but aren't prepared to jump into the water.

1. Who said you should afford 5x150k players. If you can't afford them, then get 5x100k players. That's why there are many different tactics, someone get's 2x200k players and use the rest of the cap on other players. Some get 5x100k players. You have to find the pearls. Evenly trained 100k player is better than badly trained 150k player, so it's about getting the best players while playing less salary.
2. Once again you should be training for your own team and sell the trainees when there is still market for them. Obviously if you sell them at 200k salary, they are really not that useful for most teams in BB.
3. We need BB's view on this part, as neither of us have the actual data about promotions, relegations throughout BB countrys. Even if you have to pay a lot of salarys while being in div II-III, you are still at the same level your direct opponents are, right?
I don't exactly understand what you mean by the best players being penalized? If you add money in any system, let's say Italy for example all of your opponents would still get the same amount. Perhaps inserting income only to II-III-IV etc, but is it such a big cap now that noone who promotes can stay put at the highest div?

I see a bit difrence in that point. First of all, the point isnt to play with your players, it is to win it all. I think the best players should get sold for highiest price. And Im not asking for more money. Its already I think too big difference between I and II leagues. Im asking for some posibilities for lower div. I like this game in general, but I am afraid, that we can soon have players only in I and II divisions. and from user count they are minority and the game should be fun also in III and IV and V div, because most of those guys have more of the entusiasm and they could really be the guys paying for this game.

I would sugest couple more posibilities:
1. reduce allstars and highier potential players. there shouldnt be a lot of legendary and best of all times players. National teams get filled with those, and its rediculous - MVP will soon be not enough. which isnt very motivaiting for players.

2. increase income in lower div and reduce income in top div. now guys comming from lower div get powned and will probably thrown back, because you cant compete in a league having 2 times lesser salaries. you simply cant. especially if its 300k and 600k

3. reduce salaries of top guys. why for example 300k salayr couldnt be the top? even in NBA max player salary is 1/3 of salry cap. do you see any clubs having 1.5M weekly income?

4. reduce salary of old guys - 30 and above

I think BBs didn't predict this scenario. Today I'm afraid about what will happen in the near future. Imho even if you're able to sell one player you can't stay with the money in bank cause I think BBs will do something and in this case your 3m can easily become 1,5m... The big problem in this game is that the economy seems still not well balanced, it's really hard to make a long term project if the conditions change every season

I think they should hire economist or couple just to make a plan for economy (this is what was done in ht and helped a lot). throwing in FA and turning it off isnt a solution - it is cleaning consequences, but not the reason.