BuzzerBeater Forums

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

One specific example of a tanking team potentially reaping the rewards is Random Noise (24818). For those of you not familiar with this team let me give you a break down.

I'm not sure about him. I mean, he is pretty smart. If this was really his plan I am sure he would have also trained 2-3 players. But certainly, his options will be wide open, whether by design or by fluke. Note that he doesn't even have to demote. He could easily re-tool midway through the season, win the rest of his games, make the playoffs and kill Torooo in the finals. Now wouldn't that be an interesting story?

I think there are other interesting examples - like Superfly Guy. And I am almost 99.9% sure he will time the market right, too. Potentially making him the most unstoppable team out there.

I also did something like that last season, although in retrospect I should have continued until next season. I have never been good at market simulators, though. I also thought to myself: "Certainly this deflation has run its course and the BBs will do something if it continues". Bah!


Last edited by HeadPaperPusher at 10/26/2010 8:08:08 PM

I am a bit surprised to hear the BB developers actually want to compromise market stability for that "equilibrium". Market stability should be the 1st priority to let players focus on playing the game itself rather than trying to speculate on what is going to happen to the game. It's also not funny seeing the players you bought losing value quickly.

Last edited by 7ton at 10/27/2010 10:19:20 AM

I am a bit surprised to hear the BB developers actually want to compromise market stability for that "equilibrium". Market stability should be the 1st priority to let players focus on playing the game itself rather than trying to speculate on what is going to happen to the game. It's also not funny seeing the players you bought losing value quickly.

The entire purpose of reaching the equilibrium is so that we have market stability over many seasons, just say over 50 seasons, versus having market stability for 5 seasons, but running into issues later. I actually think they maybe have been overly persistent in making sure this was clear.

About your players losing value, its all relative. Not like only your players are losing value, so you arent really losing much of anything provided you would use the sell money for a purchase. The other thing is, even if the BBs did nothing at all, your players were going to 'lose' value as the game ages anyways.

Yes,but I don't understand why this objective should be reached only draining away money from the overall market,when there are different ways to raise money and drain way money indiscrimnately affect more teams that chose some strategy against teams that chose other strategy(Randoim Noise scenario is a perfect example)