BuzzerBeater Forums

I can understand why. But after playing int his game for multiple seasons and seeing how some teams play and how they use other teams to help the is unacceptable to me. I believe that BB needs ti implement some changes for the benefit of the game such as this.

i don't think so .

because the people who offer the deal can not withdraw , the money goes nowhere but my pocket . so there is no reason for the BB to hold it .

if BB wants to hold it , provide withdraw with this change .

Your argument doesn't make any sense. If you want a reality comparison, let say third party (comitee, jury, anything) keeps the money until bidding is over. Something like if owe money (in RL) and he/she/it refuses to receive the filling from you.

Withdraws are very bad idea in general.

it's about the rights of players , if you want to take off something from people ,you'd better have a good reason , or at least make up for it .
a general loan will cause 5%/week fees in this game , and would the GM(i mean game manager,not law-executor) pay for the holding mins ? Time value of money.

withdraw is an over-reacting change , i use this to attract serious attentions , to warn that don't take thing so easily .

in real life , if you are paid by weeks , suddenly , your boss tell you that next time , you will be paid by mouths , you won't accept it without a fight do you?

i know what you mean , it seems that we talk about two different things .

i accept that withdraw is a bad idea . but i also think take off some advantage , especilly things related to all pllayer, we should be more cautions .
a reason such as advantage is not good enough for me , maybe harm is a better one .

somebody kill someone by knife , it doesn't mean the knife is a bad thing ,knife have a extensive use in kitchen & normal lifes .

i mean cheater is cheater , the immediate incoming is not the main reason that a man become a cheater

i have been SYSOPs before on the other site , and i know how SYSOPs see such saying . definitely silly , low efficiency , no feasibility , hehe

effective and justice will never sit in the same seat.

hope i didn't bothered all

best regards.

Well every change is the same for everyone. I don´t see how this one would be tougher for a specific group of players.

So basically I can buy unlimited amount of players for all my money until the first transaction goes through.
If I have a bank account of 5 mil for example I can buy unlimited amount of players for 5 mil. That's a really bad idea.

Well, only one 5 mill-player, but 5 1 mill-player and so on. The sum of dollars for all players bidden on must be less than or = 5 mill.

I understood that some people want to be able to bid on players while their longer bid is in effect.
Example: You have 1 mil cash. You have a bid on a player for 900k ending 19-th of may. They want to use that cash to pay for another player that ends 16-th of may and want to use all the 1mil on that player in case they can not get that 900k player.
You can use that leftover 100k now already why whine about that. Atleast that what I understood reading this thread through.
Using you're whole range will give an effect of you getting that other player for let's say 500k while you're other 900k bid is still in effect. If you end up getting the other player aswell you get balance of -400k. That is something I think would be wrong.

If this thread is about just not allowing people to operate with the money they have from their not ended transfers then my writings actually are beside the point. I would like it, if people would not be able to use that money before the sale ends because it seems a bit more real. Or else we could let people use money considering his weekly income for the whole season etc.

Last edited by Kukoc at 5/16/2009 10:13:22 AM