BuzzerBeater Forums

I must confess that I didnt read each and any point in the current discussion, but I come to the conclusion that you try to build up an immense rulework to cure a limited problem.

Hummm ... how can you come to a conclusion about someone's suggestion without hearing all about it ? :°)

My thoughts exactly.

Well, first of all - I think there´s two different discussions.

(1) IF there is a working formular, would the proposed system be desireable?
and
(2) Is it somehow possible to find such a formula?

About 1: If there would be any way to implement a seperation between buyer and seller, the benefit would easily outweigh the downside from my point of view.

About 2: I do think that based on the collected data over the seasons, the existing formulae which create salary, rating, efficiency and the information about how the skills and age and size affect each other when performing training (including the hidden skills) should provide such a heavy data base that it should be quite easy to find a correlation between those factors and the paid prices. The mathematical genious needed to program a working game engine (or overworking it) is probably alot bigger than whatever is needed to describe an existing process giving all the influencal insight the BBs have.

Just take a look at JosefKas work in deciphering many aspects of the GE - he had just a small amount of the overall data and still managed to set up models with pretty distinct and precise information about the outcome. Given, he was giving projections about mechanisms, not user behaviour, but the user behaviour is the very thing everybody wants to elminate when talking about fair prices.

By monitoring the "buying market", which would still be independet from the selling market, you also get a good feeling for changes in preferences, style, importance, so that any "market value" formular can hold a dynamic factor taking into account how "sexy" players are, for example - just as Wolph mentioned in another context - when beeing injured 3, 4, 5 weeks, rooks are highly interesting at the beginning of a season, lose value by the end, veterans gain value come playoff time, and so on.

Setting up such a system might be quite a workload, but with mathematical skill and a solid model it would probably be a huge step towards Buzzerbeater 2.0

(1) IF there is a working formular, would the proposed system be desireable?
and
(2) Is it somehow possible to find such a formula?

I guess you already pretty much answered this way in your post, but I think it is worth repeating.

(1) Perhaps so... From the "reality" point of view (and most of us probably consider that to some degree about most everything in this game), it would seem weird and wrong. From the game-design point of view, it might work all right. The buying decision is about improving your team. The selling price is currently somewhat up to luck. Both are affected by the market, but not always to same extent (we all know the complaints about time of auction deadlines etc.)

(2) Considering that implementing the formula would remove much of incentive for overpaying (current TPE considers also overpriced transfers), once the change is in place the market data would certainly be better than what we have today for TPE.

Your suggestion seems quite efficient to me as it will make huge changes. Still, it requires a solid analysis of the data to make coherence with other existing criteria of the players.

I'll be short. The following figures about any player are already available and bring no interpretation :
- last trading date
- last trading price.

With an easy calculation, you can come out with how long the player was on a roster. You link that to a profit tax.
1 - 2 weeks : 100% profit tax (no profit made on the trade)
3 - 5 weeks : 75% profit tax (25% maximum profit made by seller)
6 - 9 weeks : 50% profit tax (50% max profit )
10 - 14 weeks : 25% profit tax (75% max profit made)
> 1 season : No profit tax.

Of course, current trade fees disappear.
Nothing else changes from current Trade scheme (bidding, setting sales price and how long the player is on TL).
You can imagine the player going to FA if no one bids. Could be complementary.

Seems quite simplier... And guess what, that's what Wolph was all about.

PS.: i divided 1 season time into 4 growing parts (2, 3, 4 and 5 weeks long) and accord them +25% of profit tax. Too simple to be fair enough, consider it as a sketch that can/must be sharpenned, but you got the main idea of it.

All this talk...

means nothing without a BB backing it.

Because Wolph is often repeating the same thing again and again ?

And seelenjeager was talking about the big thread about day-trader were most of the discussion is going right now and which Wolph decide his idea wasn't at all linked and thus worth a new thread instead of putting it on the right thread. As he, himself, used the other thread to talk about things not on topic, this is, in a way, logical he thinks the other thread isn't anymore about transfer market and day-trading, so let's just open another one.

Come on....This is the BBs fault...They woke up the monster with the Achievement crap. You can't see that he is just trying to get the points...
Discussion Starter :Started a forum thread with posts from many different managers
If you want proof of the silliness.....go look at his transfer history....he recently wasted like 20K buying 8 players with the 1st name Jose.....Yeah..Scary isn't it!!!