BuzzerBeater Forums

BB Global (English) > Day/Week Trading Abuse Report Guidelines

Day/Week Trading Abuse Report Guidelines

Set priority
Show messages by
This Post:
11
314820.9 in reply to 314820.1
Date: 5/9/2022 9:09:41 PM
Shrewsbury Honeybadgers
IV.16
Overall Posts Rated:
3333
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.

From: 豹
This Post:
11
314820.10 in reply to 314820.8
Date: 5/9/2022 9:15:45 PM
Kerbal Space Program
CBSL
Overall Posts Rated:
2323
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

From: WFUnDina

This Post:
55
314820.11 in reply to 314820.9
Date: 5/9/2022 9:43:45 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
3030
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

From: Apex

This Post:
00
314820.12 in reply to 314820.11
Date: 5/9/2022 10:03:53 PM
Atelier
IV.13
Overall Posts Rated:
420420
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.

2x NBBA Champion: S55, S56. 3x USA Cup Champion: S54, S55, S56. WR for longest home streak ever at 11 in Season 47.
From: khenry

This Post:
00
314820.13 in reply to 314820.11
Date: 5/9/2022 10:20:47 PM
Shrewsbury Honeybadgers
IV.16
Overall Posts Rated:
3333
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.

From: WFUnDina

To: Apex
This Post:
00
314820.14 in reply to 314820.12
Date: 5/9/2022 10:33:09 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
3030
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?

From: Apex

This Post:
00
314820.15 in reply to 314820.14
Date: 5/9/2022 10:47:31 PM
Atelier
IV.13
Overall Posts Rated:
420420
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.

2x NBBA Champion: S55, S56. 3x USA Cup Champion: S54, S55, S56. WR for longest home streak ever at 11 in Season 47.
This Post:
00
314820.16 in reply to 314820.1
Date: 5/9/2022 11:43:30 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
3131
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.

From: iuliut

This Post:
22
314820.17 in reply to 314820.11
Date: 5/9/2022 11:51:43 PM
Vulturii Oradeni
II.3
Overall Posts Rated:
22
Second Team:
Vulturii Oradeni II
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?

This Post:
33
314820.18 in reply to 314820.1
Date: 5/10/2022 12:02:36 AM
忽于II
II.3
Overall Posts Rated:
55
For a web/mobile game, this is very counter intuitive towards engagement and user retention. TBH after your lineup has been set there is not much incentive to login the game apart from scouring the transfer market for good deals.

If the intention is to protect new users, restrictions should be placed on the new user to prevent them purchasing players "above market rate" (who determines this?).

I see the transfer market like the stock market, I dont see how experienced investors are punished because new investers lose money because of their lack of experience and market knowledge.

Eg. I bought my 3 "trainees" at the beginning of the season. After 3 weeks I bought a better prospect on the transfer market and decide to sell one of the trainee. The price will now be higher then the original price because of the 3 weeks of training. Looking at the guideline, this seems to fall into the "illegal day-trading" criteria. Is this not allowed anymore?

Advertisement