BuzzerBeater Forums

You shouldn't be able to bid more than you have, so if the Auto Bid would take you over the available money you have you would be out of the bidding.

Seems pretty obvious for me.

Lock the Maximum Bids.

Say I put in a Max Bid 300,000.

You like the player, go to put in your Max Bid of 300,000. All it will say is "300,000 Bid already placed".

Now you have to make a decision... how much MORE are you willing to go. It didn't tell you 300,000 was the HIGHEST Auto Bid, just that the 300,000 Bid had already been placed. Did some one else bid 400,000? You don't know. All you know is 300,000 was bid already, and if you want a shot at this guy you need to pony up more than that.

Puts a ton of strategy into it, and I love not getting the Highest Current Max Bid. Why should I let you know the High Bid is 600,000? You weren't willing to go over 300,000 just a few seconds ago. So decide if you will bid the 300,000+ or not bid at all.

Point being, only ONE Player could be set at each Maximum Bid, and the Highest Max Bid would not be given. Even if your bid is allowed, you aren't sure if it's the Current High Bid.

Since no two people can place the same bid you no longer have to worry about 'Ties'.

Also, if you fall below the amount needed for your Bid at any time, your Bid is removed. That 'Max Bid' would then become available for new Bidders, if they happen to choose it. (They would have no way of knowing what the bid was, so they couldn't intentionally choose it).

Every time someone bought a player, it's because nobody wanted to pay more, so every time it was an outbid?

Seriously I don't know if you are serious by this question...
When someone is placing the last bid (and consequently wins it) but his bid is just the minimum requested above the previous bid (or something close to that) then it is most positively not an Over-Bid.

On the other hand, when a user cannot attend an auction so we puts an amount which is twice the value that player is worth (for example), then it is easily called overbidding.

And I believe you know that...

It would be the same with auto-bid, BUT computer would save you of your bad knowledge of the market, great...

It would be the same, comparing to the first case - meaning the player will not over-bid by this system!
It would not be the same like the second case.
Meaning - those who cannot be at the specific time of the auction, but knows they want that player will not be unfairly in worse position for that bid.
It has nothing to do with "knowing the market", it has all to do of removing unreasonable advantage that has nothing to do with the game.

I do agree that you may be right at one point - a user that is unfamilar with the market (which is part of the game), may just try bidding between the current price until whatever value he chooses. Only that this is true also in current system...
So, auto-bid does not change status regarding that, but...

Maybe there is a need to define another feature that will limit amount of bidding (in both systems) per user, for example - the highest bid a user put should not be more than twice the first bid he gaved for that auction.
Again - this has nothing to do with the auction system used.

Many players here aren't able to speak in their own language and you think most of them speak English ?
About translation, you should talk to LA-Wolph, it should be funny to read.

So???
It would be more fair in case the language (which is not what the game is about) wouldn't be an issue here, but it ain't so, and would require enormous work.
It is a limitation for the BB comunity growing, but it is far less limiting than the Auction system, and much more complex to fix.
Anyhow, it doesn't mean that unfairness should't be handled just because there are other unfairness in the game.

And for the developping time, it could close the discussion, it's not a priority, nor by a long shot, We can discuss again in some years :D

Yes it is a priority, has it is causing great unfairness between a very small group that has an unfair advantage (who can allow themseles being connected almost whenever they want) and all the others.
It also has a good priority has the cost of the fix is very (very) small.

Current state is that users are leaving the game because its' auction unfairness.
I guess that the site's owner does not like that...

As you focused only on the time it will take to code it and on the importance of this feature, I'll guess you agree with all other points I've made.

Coding time - Well, there is not much to say. This is their code and job, and they know better.
What we will write here will have no say on that.
I believe it is not that costly.

Importance - As it gives great advantage to those who can get online almost whenever thay can, it frustrates all the others.
Frustration is causing who suffer from it (most of the others, which is the main group) to leave the game.
Due to that, it has great importance.
Maybe not the top one (as they have some engine issues), but close to that.

Well, as I wrote, the developers and their manager will take the call.
I only gave answers to all of the irrelevant claims that were given.

All the other things you wrote will just not change anything here for the site developers, and are totaly due to frustration that your excuses had been answered.

My main problem with this suggestion is that bidding is fun.
It binds users to the game, it builds up their loyalty.
Therefore, auto-bid would make early users not intrigued about the whole game as much as normal bidding does.


Now, I know you will deem this claim as irrelevant, but oh well.

1) They could continue bidding after the auto-bid part.
As currently users that cannot attend auction mught just put the max bidding from start, there is no difference.

2) Auction is not the main thing in this game.
It is not for communicating through bidding.

3) In case those users are not in to communication through auctions, they will just won't anyhow.
The same goes the other way around.
In case they do like communication through auctions, they will just would! (after the auto-bid part).

4) You could always say, let the auto-bid part be hidden and let the process take its own ful time - bidding each auto bid between 1 second before auction end and 3 minutes.

Basically, there is no hole in this suggestion.
Just users who may prefer to keep a state where they have some unfair advantage.

1) I think that a user that chooses to auto-bid, will do it because it's convenient, as in: "Now I can forget about it". How many of them would continue to bid after their auto-bid expires? It's almost a contradiction.
And currently, users either put max bidding from the start OR skip to the next bid, and they actually take part in it.

2) Early users use the transfer market a lot more than veterans. The fun of bidding has a great role in gaining an early user's loyalty to the game.

3) I never talked about this "communication" thing, so I don't understand why you come up with this point here.

4) I didn't say that bidding against auto-bidders is less fun; you are right, one could barely notice that he's bidding against a bot and not a human. But this is not the point. It's auto-bidders who would have less fun, not their opponents. Early users would probably find auto-bidding very convenient, and they would use it, THEREFORE they will be a lot less active and ultimately less bound to the game.

Finally, I never made any deal in "strange" times of the day/night, so I have never exploited the "unfair" advantage you talk about, but still: I like the current system more than the one you propose.

4) I didn't say that bidding against auto-bidders is less fun; you are right, one could barely notice that he's bidding against a bot and not a human. But this is not the point. It's auto-bidders who would have less fun, not their opponents.

Well, I will say it. It is less fun. And you can easily notice whether there is an auto-bid or a real person, unless attempts are made to cover the fact that it is a bot doing the bidding.