BuzzerBeater Forums

- 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)

But its not draining away money. Supply and Demand. There are more trained players now than there were 3 seasons ago. Any possible logic follows that the prices are going to drop. The game is young, this hadnt happened prior to that. It is happening now.

Market follows says that supply and domand are leading the prices to drop,but at the time the Supply is drugged by FA,especially from low/middle level FA,that all the teams are capable to train but at the time see their value not simply lowereb,but definitively disrupted
Weren't BB words that FA are in the market to drain money?

Last edited by Steve Karenn at 10/27/2010 12:38:59 PM

But its not draining away money. Supply and Demand. There are more trained players now than there were 3 seasons ago. Any possible logic follows that the prices are going to drop. The game is young, this hadnt happened prior to that. It is happening now.

Before you start chanting on this, I just want to point out that prices dropped way off the cliff in a span of only about 5-6 weeks. In particular, I bought a SG about 4 weeks ago for what I thought was a fantastic deal (based on what I saw similar players selling for in the off-season). However, his value has even dropped since then, possibly by as much as $1 million

I never remember the 3rd week of the season to be a historically bad time to buy. Actually, I seem to remember that it was usually the off-season when you could pick up the best deals on players.

All this to say that: there is an argument out there saying the top players in the game still get top dollar. I am here to tell you that they may still get top dollar, but the currency is no longer the same.

(By the way, just as a further example, not too long ago the top players in the game sold for 10 million or more. By my estimation, top players sell for considerably less than that in the current market.)