BuzzerBeater Forums

what do you mean by "trying"? buy for one game to see how he plays and sell?
anybody does that?

Im talking about the "room" for the wrong decision. You may know how things here works, I do not. My strategy is based just on probability and luck.

Im talking about the "room" for the wrong decision. You may know how things here works, I do not. My strategy is based just on probability and luck.

are you sure that any game should give a helping hand to the ones that randomly click in it ?
if you play without thinking then suffer the consequences, simple as that

Because the people buying these players to win certain games like cups or PO finals aren't worried about the money. As long as they don't go so far into debt that they'll bot out, it makes no difference.

I will not disagree with you there. However, lets face the facts. It will be made more difficult to do it losing so much more money than NONE at all and make it less appealing.

For the need to have such player for some period in the team as the obligation, well, what if I buy too high payed player and will not count my finances 4 weeks in advance, does it mean that I have to sell someone else to not go into red numbers?

This sucks too.

You are right. That would suck to go in red. It also means that you probably shouldn't have that player if you can't afford him realistically. What you are pretty much saying is what we are trying to combat. People getting players they can't afford just to win a game and selling them not to pay salary.

I mean leaving strategy, it means boost the team for important match, win the missing trophy and leave the game. In this case you don't care about bankruptcy after the match.

In that scenario they are also LEAVING. So once again it will put a strain if they don't leave as little as it may be it is still a strain. If they are leaving that will mean that "scumbag" player which is what I would call them is gone and so will one of those players.

MP Inclusive - I have to call your bullshit. When I first played this game many seasons ago I knew what you were just talking about would not work just by common sense and later discovery of forums. You are in D 3 if you dont know how things work by now I am baffled.

Also guys, I just want to point out that even though I am in D 5 I was about to promote to D 3 about 3 seasons ago and stopped playing. So don't think I am some noob haha I joined back up a month ago and have gone 8-1 and went from 7th to second in my weak division and set to compete with this same squad in D 4.

My thoughts are maybe we should pro-rata salaries of new purchases for the first two weeks for each competitive game played that week..

This idea comes from the chain of thought that I sign a player and don't pay his salaries even though he has played for my team... how is that right?

So assuming a player is purchased on a Monday, and is sold by Thursday, my next economic update will pay the salary for that player (either 1/2 or 1/3 depending on whether I'm in the cup or not). The team who purchased the player to play for the Cup on Thursday and in League on Saturday will pay 2/3 of the salary or if they are out of the cup and the only competitive game is a Saturday League game, they pay 1/2. This ensures all players get paid their salary by team and games played.. not whoever is unlucky enough to be holding him during the economic updates.

So let's say a 500k C is on the market, on average sells for $1m.

If a team purchases said player, currently the only loss is in the resale, provided they sell before the financial update. So about 21%.

A team will lose 200k using the current system. If we pro-rata the salary of new purchases, the loss for the team using this tactic will be 450k (assuming the C resells at $1m, almost a week's salary).

Hopefully this will really put pressure on reducing big men salary too..

Just a thought, not sure if it' feasible.

I'd question the "1/2 or 1/3"... everyone should pay full salary for the players on their roster...

additionally, we went far further in a suggestion given in this thread (4 weeks salary) to additionally limit day-trading and divine-tricks

I hope this thread has been noticed by GMs and BBs, though only one GM wrote anything during the discussion...
it would be great to hear that somebody at least read and considered what we all wrote here...
thanks for all comments and ideas, hopefully this thread will be continued until the issue is solved!

One solution could be to introduce a minimum number of games a player must play for your club to be eligible in playoff/relegation games. For example, a player might have to play 6 games for your team before being eligible. This would help stop managers purchasing players and selling them straight after the game, as they would need to have been at the club for longer.

I hope this thread has been noticed by GMs and BBs, though only one GM wrote anything during the discussion...
it would be great to hear that somebody at least read and considered what we all wrote here...
thanks for all comments and ideas, hopefully this thread will be continued until the issue is solved!

well, this is a very sensible discussion.

I admid I didn't read everything (I picked up the thread too late for that) but yes, there is a point in saying the 'problem' should be fixed. On the other hand, it will not be so easy, and it's the same for everyone.

Buying 1 or 2 monsters does not guarantee the trophy.
the player can get injured, or he can get a bad shape, or the game can be lost by tactics or bad luck.
But ofcourse it will help.... a lot...

So personally I have mixed feelings: the opportunity is there for everyone, and the players exist. We can not make the player go away. We can not forbid managers to sell players, and certainly not to buy players.

The transferdeadline has been put in place, for the reason that is mentioned here. This is nothing new. This discussion has taken place many seasons ago, and the solution then was: transferdeadline to play in POs.

In the meantime however, players have evolved, and now we can talk about monsters wandering in BB-world. So the solution, which worked well back then, seems not working that good anymore now.
If this is getting out of hand, and the BBs feel the balance is realy wrong (again), they will look for a solution.

That solution probably might be the best and easiest, to move the deadline. If they move the deadline 2 or 3 weeks earlier in time, the monsters will cost the teams 2 or 3 weeks more wage.

Any other solution I can think of (for instance not being able to sell the player within a sudden timeframe, so a team buying such a lpayer is forced to keep him a while) might ruin teams to a point they will loose their entire team. We must be carefull not to take such measures, as that can never be the purpose.

On the other hand, I'm not so sure there realy is a problem.
to reach the POs, one needs a solid team the entire season. As competition is often tough, especially at higher leagues, managers often have little savings left to invest in monsters. So you might see it as a good tactical call if a manager succeeds to save enough during the season, still reach the POs, and then strengthen his team for 3 weeks to get the trophy. It's not THAT simple to put it just like: hey anyone who wants a trophy, just by a mutant, it's easy.

So I hope everyone understands the delicacy of this topic.
on one side you have the tactical options, and good planning, with the recources available in BB at this time.
on the other side you have the hard working manager, going for the long term strategy, seeing his chances to win the title reduced drastically, because a 'lesser' team bought a few monsters to get 1 shot at glory.