BuzzerBeater Forums

Exactly! So that means, the player was worth his price but still did not sold. Dont punish managers just because they are trying to sell their players, punish those that are selling a lot higher than players value (if it is possible)

Last edited by str77 at 10/24/2022 1:49:12 PM

I remember the past requests were made to limit the number of times a player could end up on the transfer market, and other times there was talk of how to help new managers better assess the value of a player.

In this direction, perhaps a graph could be created, in the same style as the salary history, with the various times the player was placed on the market and at what amount, indicating with different colors whether the transfer took place or not.

This way new users can rate a player who has been put on the market many times at the same price and has always gone unsold as a "defect" and think he is not worth that value.

On the other hand, a manager who in need (to replace an injured person, to increase competitiveness in view of the playoffs, etc.) could still assess that the price is worth the risk.

I can see the thinking behind the original issue here. However, it is not the biggest problem with the transfer market.

Rather, the biggest problem is the fact that a manager can increase their own bid multiple times in a row on a single player. I know I'm probably alone in viewing this as a problem but I see no good reason why this is allowed. It seems like it is a good way for two managers to collude by dumping money from one to another.

Bringing it back to the original issues raised in this thread. Why is it viewed as ok for a single manager to increase a bid from $1000 to over $1M all by themselves and that isn't seen as a problem, yet a manager trying to sell a player multiple times until they get the value they think he's worth is a problem and needs to be stopped?

I'm really annoyed of seeing the same players in the transfer list every day with unrealistic values, and no intention of being sold for a fair value.

I have quoted your main issue to address specifically. I do not agree to the idea of punishing players for trying to improve their teams. I propose an alternative that might help your issue if the current transfer market search options are not sufficient.

What should be added is a “block” list, similar to the one to block users on the forums. If we are able to block a player so we don’t see their repeated listing every single day, or even to block a team to avoid seeing listings of any of their players, it would solve your issue without causing negative effects for others.

I've been selling players lately, again and again on the transfer list until they all were sold at the asking price.

I've been training those players for seasons after seasons. Knowing well all the years - nearly two irl- i put on them, just to read a thread about saying if you put on sell a player it is because you want to selll him.

No, it can also be that you know the price you want for him. The price you put on two years irl, a time you passed on shaping a player to your best ability. Showing an asking price is having the possibility for an interested party either to wait until he has the asking price, or to write a mail with his bid(*).


(*) bid that i did agree on for one player





Last edited by boule at 12/2/2022 1:43:43 PM

Totally agree with this!!!

I find it laughable that people are responding with "relisting a player multiple times would not affect you, just scroll past". Speak for yourselves, just because it doesn't affect you doesn't mean it won't affect other people.

Recently I had a MVP potential draftee (not drafted by my club, but as a U21 manager, he's potentially one of my future players) be bought up by a day trader. It's all good, except that dude tried to flip the kid for a really huge amount. He practically got relisted for the whole season between 350k to 500k (imagine trying to sell for this price from mid to late season), and when he was finally listed for 100k, someone finally bid on him only for the owner to buy him back (no one else bid after that). It was essentially 1 season (and running) of training wasted. And from a micronation where a number of our MVP/HOF draftees fall into bots hands, it's really not helping. Don't come up with the counter argument that we should have our own local trainer pool snap them up - we do have a team of local trainers and its constantly at full capacity.

Another was a case which happened some time ago, one of the U21 players got relisted again and again, revealing his skills throughout the season.

I'm not really on board with merch hits or the GS hits. In the second scenario, GS hits will just drag down the NT, while it won't even affect the seller in the first scenario. Merch hits might sound cool but BB merch has always been proportional to salary - so it won't be logical for the team to have a greater hit in merch than what they're already earning from the player (especially when you can see the breakdown now), hence it won't really impact both (unless the NT player has a high salary)

The reduction in percentage earned isn't too bad an idea though, I guess it could be expanded on, or maybe have a maximum number of relists for a period (limiting to 3 every 30 days). Implementing one of these two should be able to reduce the impact of day trading.

As for the argument about multiple relisting to "find the right timing to get the highest price for the player", you don't need to repeatedly relist them. Keep track of the site user count, player sales trends, and list them so that their bidding time ends at the time which you feel will fetch the highest price. If you scout your opponents, it's not impossible to do such things as well. Of course, if you really still want to push your luck further by using the relist tactic, then my suggestion (maximum number of listings per 30 days) should have less impact on this as you will still get 97% of the sales amount, and you can still relist them without much worry (albeit less often).

Last edited by BuzzRBeater at 12/4/2022 7:49:38 PM

Imaginary scenario: I have a great 28yo player with ~200k salary and value more than 3M, that I want to sell. There are not a lot of teams that can afford his salary and are less that have that amount of money to buy him. That means that I have to be patient till he got sold, sometimes I have to list and relist him many times just to be sold at a fair price. Why should I punished for that with lower GS or financially or with a relisting limit? I am not doing anything wrong.

I am against of taking measures about transfer listing, but if BBs want to they can just put a low net cost 5.000 or 10.000$ every time a player is listed (lets say a payment for agents to look for a buyer). This is a very low cost for high value players that it is not easy to sell but it is a significant cost for day traders that trying to sell draftees