BuzzerBeater Forums

Too in HT. If you buy a player you can´t sell him and get 100% selling fee, it´s takes time. For example player you bought 7 days ago mean that if you sell him after 7 days you get 86.38% of the selling fee. Very good rule and may be better than tax for selling beccause it´s more fair.

What you're describing sounds exactly the same as last season's regime.
a) you could not sell a player within 4 days from the purchase price, so you had to pay at least one week salary (although I think it might have been theoretically possible for Utopia teams as even the economic update there runs late). In hattrick you pay one week salary upfront when you purchase a player too.
b) after 4 days you could list a player and you'd receive roughly 80% of the sale price. That was a fixed percentage.
c) after about 14 weeks you could list a player and receive 97% of the sale price (that was also a fixed percentage and it is the maximum you can receive even today)

The change introduced in the last offseason modified that 80% and 97% and linked them to how many players you sold in the previous 14 weeks. The result was that there were managers who would obtain less than 20% from an immediate resale.

The requisite that Hrudey is advocating would likely to kill most of the day trading from top managers. Tankers in lower leagues with a plump bank account would be less affected although it would take more time to be able to make the same money they were able to make in the past.

Last edited by Lemonshine at 11/10/2014 1:09:34 PM

There has been no change to that this offseason. The only thing who changed are the numbers. It was already working like that in season 28 and before. It was just more permissive.

Yes, indeed.

One important thing are here to have in mind. We are only talking about exactly the player you bought= If you buy John Smith you buy his salary same day as you bought him so you pay always one week salary no matter when in the week you buy him. Too, if you decide to sell him after one week you get 86% and then more and more of the salary fee after how much longer he stay til you keeo 97%.
But, this is only question of John Smith. You can buy or sell as many players in normal way, each of them have this personal rule.

In sokker: "I believe Sokker.org has a similar system and doesn't charge you just for listing (I may be mistaken on this though)."

Sokker charge you always, and actually heavy, each time you sell. If you put on almost 0 you don´t pay but if you want some reasonable minium floor the charge you.

In my opinion the system in HT have worked very well.

I can see how a listing tax could be punitive, but we have to agree on what behaviour we're trying to encourage and what we're trying to prevent.

That is the trick, isn't it? Just with the label of "daytrading", one could mean those who buy players worth little but with high potential and relist them at high prices, those who buy players for relative cheap prices to use for a short term and then sell for a modest profit afterward, or those who do the time zone trading where they find players selling below market value at a relative dead hour and then sell them at a reasonable price (and often benefit from bid wars) during peak hours. And then of course, for each of the various facets one then has to see how it impacts user experience for various groups of users, and how harmful or beneficial each of those scenarios is for the involved groups and for the game as a whole. Luckily, any community of this type has a very active feedback loop when any changes to the ecosystem are made, though I've seen many a game fail to handle that feedback well. ;)

In sokker: "I believe Sokker.org has a similar system and doesn't charge you just for listing (I may be mistaken on this though)."

Sokker charge you always, and actually heavy, each time you sell. If you put on almost 0 you don´t pay but if you want some reasonable minium floor the charge you.

In my opinion the system in HT have worked very well.

Just for clarification because English is, as you no doubt know, a very silly language: when you say:
"Sokker charge you always, and actually heavy, each time you sell"

Do you mean that when you offer a player for sale, you are charged, or does that only happen if the player actually receives a bid? My understanding is that you mean the fee applies simply for offering the player for sale (by putting him on a transfer list) but it could be read either way.

True, sorry for that. The fee applies simply for offering the player for sale which is not the right way in my opinion.

I'm not a fan of Lemonshire propositions, nor I was agreeing with him in his way to discuss with hrudey, but if we look at the real facts, he did play 3 seasons in D3. In season 23, he joined the game and received his team for the last two scrimmages of the season. He didn't even play an official game, the play-down were before he signed up.

Thank you for the clarification, Perpete. For the record, I stand corrected.

I love all the changes introduced this season. I'm still having my doubts about the Stamina and Game Shape thing (if I understand it, Stamina has been enhanced in detriment of Game Shape). I actually loved bad game shape ruining the high K players of one-minded bullying teams. I like more the Spurs or Chicago teams type of play than, say, the Lakers or the Sixers of Iverson's days (although, I love AI).

Fellows will complain about anything. They think they are entitled to it, and bring a conservative me-me-me customer attitude. And althoug partially right, since some pay, and since this is too business for the BB-Marin (I guess), in my case I take it as a challenge and with a strategic point of view, rather than cry foul for EVERY little thing that supposedly goes wrong or "miss the mark", or whatever.

And for all the cry babies, they want realism and stuff, but they don't tell you what type of realism they are talking about. They want porntube-type realism where they can say "Please me, please me", not actual BASKETBALL MANAGEMENT realism, with strategy and analysis. Please, take a hard look at the NBA and perhaps consult the two or three Trade Machines at sports network's (like ESPN), or actually read the entire NBA's Collectibe Bargaining Agreement (CBA), and perhaps you can take a look at the REAL world of baskeball management: those are some strategically challenging set of rules you have there. Ey, people actually take PhDs on that CBA. I bet you would not last a day as a real GM.

So let's just take this game as it is, a strategic management masterpiece that simulates Xs and Os are basketball players. I like the narrative. I welcome more changes in the future, and some glitches (I would still like to see Starters names in Bold on the Game reports, just to mention a small example, to visually make it easy to check, track, compare and analyze stuff).

But for the most part, I think things are going good. Yeah, you have less users. I, as player, I prefer 20k good long-standing users, than 40k whining human bots that included, perhaps, 5k farms, or so.

Anyway, keep it up!

Good post :)

"Please me, please me", not actual BASKETBALL MANAGEMENT realism, with strategy and analysis. Please, take a hard look at the NBA

Your idea of this game looks eerily similar to Wolph/Trainerman's.

read the entire NBA's Collectibe Bargaining Agreement (CBA), and perhaps you can take a look at the REAL world of baskeball management: those are some strategically challenging set of rules you have there. Ey, people actually take PhDs on that CBA.

The CBA is a set of rules on trades, cap, salaries. You'll find 0 rules on the game of basketball there. Besides, in BB we have no trades, no cap, no roster limit, no max contract, MLE, veteran minimum, no non guaranteed contracts. So yeah, NBA GMs and BB GMs do not have much in common at all.

But for the most part, I think things are going good. Yeah, you have less users. I, as player, I prefer 20k good long-standing users, than 40k whining human bots that included, perhaps, 5k farms, or so.

You are ok with low numbers of committed managers and so am I (especially because England is a reasonably sized nation). What if the majority of the current users don't share our opinion? Also, dwindling numbers aren't just a concern for how enjoyable the game is: why would a developer spend time on a game with a small userbase?

Coming back to daytrading, also known as the topic of this thread, the real reason why the transfer market isn't working properly and there are so many opportunities to exploit in BB is mostly due to lack of users. If you had 4-5 times the number of users, the market would have sufficient liquidity on its own that you wouldn't have to introduce rules preventing people from taking advantage.

Last edited by Lemonshine at 11/11/2014 4:59:20 AM