BuzzerBeater Forums

Thank you again, Sentinel. Very un-constructive and off topic, much like the example that Hrudey has set.

It is interesting to me that here on a constructive thread, seeking ways to improve the game, that people are unable to participate constructively. Have the GM's so poisoned the forums that even when I do a constructive thread people just troll me?

Let's get constructive here, folks.

Let's get constructive here, folks.

Bring me some bricks and cement please...

Yes, we are all aware of Marin's spin on it and those of us who play the game are aware of what it did to the economy.

What did *IT* do to the economy? Very little. Supply and demand and the amount of money in the game can move mountains; a very small amount of change in the small amount of players available in free agency is like trying to stop a runaway train by farting on it. You continue to claim that the prices in the game move at the whim of BB-Marin, and every time you say it and I call you out on it, you either ignore it or now, hilariously, claim that it's off topic. How about if you don't want a topic discussed, don't discuss it

Thank you again, Sentinel. Very un-constructive and off topic, much like the example that Hrudey has set.

It is interesting to me that here on a constructive thread, seeking ways to improve the game, that people are unable to participate constructively. Have the GM's so poisoned the forums that even when I do a constructive thread people just troll me?

Let's get constructive here, folks.

You know what? Why don't you answer BrazilianBlur, who asks a very concrete and substantive question?

Still don't get how you think training is king?? Have a look at any d2 team upwards in BB and I bet you no more than 2 of their starting five are homegrown players...

The rest will have been bought either fully trained or nearly fully trained. So how is training king?

Why not address the vast majority of my long post, which discussed how a team in the USA did just what you're claiming is not possible, building a team and succeeding not through training, but through judicious use of the transfer market and being a generally good manager? It's especially amusing since your list of 'constructive' suggestions so far, six items long, was half pulled from that.

Why, if you're so interested in "constructive" discussion, do you specifically go out of your way to spit my name out of your mouth?

ANSWER: Because you don't want constructive discussion. You want to sound off on what you don't like and you want people to talk about how much they agree with you and your ideas. And when you don't get that in this thread, or the other threads you post in, you'll just keep on fishing.

I suggest again you look into Valhallla! as a template of a team that didn't focus on training but still succeeded. If he were still here, I suggest he'd be able to walk you through it in detail, but sadly I think even that wouldn't matter. I also suggest you actually consider the radical notion that you might learn more if you looked at statements other than enthusiastic genuflection as opportunities to see different perspectives, rather than an elaborate conspiracy to discredit you.

Let's get constructive here, folks.

Mike,
I think the reason you're finding all of these responses to be off-topic is that most people posting are disagreeing with the very nature of the topic. Since there are already many ways to play the game, asking for "Constructive ideas on how to make it more possible to play the game different ways" ends up just being a vehicle for you to bring up all your arguments that you've been bringing up consistently for quite some time.

Then, when you're argued wth, you claim that those disagreeing with are either poisoning, tainting, or staining the game with their opinion. Or you'll make an analogy about rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic, which actually, if this was the Titanic, it would have made several trips back and forth across the Atlantic while you've been claiming it had already sunk. In actuality, user trends have leveled off recently, so if you want to rearrange them deck chairs, please do so to enjoy watching a game of shuffleboard or perhaps stare off at the beautiful ocean horizon, but this ship isn't sinking. Sure, it's not riding as high as it once did, but it is far faaaar from going under.

As a manager who plays two VERY different strategies with his two teams in terms of development (A steady build while both training and using the transfer wire with my US team, and a 100% homegrown Utopia team) and then plays various offensive sets throughout every season, and has had success with almost all of them, I can say confidently that there certainly already are many ways to play the game.

To honor your intent for this post, though, because I do believe that improving the game experience for all is a good idea, I will give a couple ideas as to your list:

Constructive ideas on how to make it more possible to play the game different ways:
1. Join user groups where you can learn from more experienced users/mentors about how to best utilize the talent you have on your team.
2. Solve the strange substitution issues with all but SFDC, so they can actually all be used as part of game strategy. (I know this is a tough one that may be too embedded in the code to fix, but still, it could provide some added wrinkles to game play)

So far we have:

1. Make the transfer list viable at all levels.
2. Make older players' skills drop more slowly.
3. Make the draft relevant.
4. Use a cookie cutter inside team (whatever that is. Need some concrete suggestions on how to do this).
5. Use a heavy shotblocking focused team. (This isn't improving the game itself).
6. Use an outside shooting team (which you would develop … how?)
7. Join user groups where you can learn from more experienced users/mentors about how to best utilize the talent you have on your team. (This isn't improving the game itself.)
8. Fix the strange substitution issues with all but SFDC, so they can actually all be used as part of game strategy.

9. Increase marketing efforts to attract new users to the game and make efforts (like the franchise player which I think is an AWESOME addition) to help them stay here. More users = more players and deeper level of competition and a great diversity in the game. This will allow for different team builds, and more options for users in general.

10. Decrease or eliminate the merch penalty for using foreign players. People still buy Dirk Nowitski jerseys. Perhaps the NT bonuses could remain specific to individual countries. This allows teams to draw strong players from diverse sources without fearing a lack of income each week.

Thank you. We're now up to 10 suggestions.

What did *IT* do to the economy? Very little. Supply and demand and the amount of money in the game can move mountains; a very small amount of change in the small amount of players available in free agency is like trying to stop a runaway train by farting on it. You continue to claim that the prices in the game move at the whim of BB-Marin, and every time you say it and I call you out on it, you either ignore it or now, hilariously, claim that it's off topic. How about if you don't want a topic discussed, don't discuss it

There have been two major shifts in transfer prices while I've been playing here. The first was the drop in prices (actually started before I came here but was in process) which I gather was caused (in part perhaps?) by the introduction of free agents. If that's wrong then please correct me. However if that is right, then that must have been some fart.

The second is the shift we're in now. This could be my intense racism coming into it here, but I believe this was exacerbated by the introduction of a fake country where it is believed that money started to grow on trees, was harvested and then transported to all corners of the real world (actual countries at least). After all the fake country had to get their players from somewhere. Again, a big fart, and while it may have been Mike Franks who introduced the fake country, I'm pretty sure it was someone else who farted.

More recently we've had the restriction to free agency where 60k+ players are now retired no matter what the age, and geriatrics aren't retired. I've said elsewhere that this has caused the inflation to become worse, and since you haven't called me on it, and yet you call Mike Franks on it here, I assume you must have missed it. Feel free to call me on it now.

What this free agency change has done, has in one stroke removed a chunk of players who are valuable to D1 and D2 teams, probably the most important part of the market, and not just because I'm in it. Now those same teams have to chase the same players as many more teams. So we have from one action, both reduced supply, and increased demand. That's never good. Again I don't think this was Mike Franks's fart.

By the way, I'm English, and fairly old. Don't make me make any more fart jokes please.

More recently we've had the restriction to free agency where 60k+ players are now retired no matter what the age, and geriatrics aren't retired. I've said elsewhere that this has caused the inflation to become worse, and since you haven't called me on it, and yet you call Mike Franks on it here, I assume you must have missed it. Feel free to call me on it now.

What this free agency change has done, has in one stroke removed a chunk of players who are valuable to D1 and D2 teams, probably the most important part of the market, and not just because I'm in it. Now those same teams have to chase the same players as many more teams. So we have from one action, both reduced supply, and increased demand. That's never good.

He won't call you on it because he knows the manipulations of the transfer market have made inflation worse. Everybody knows that, even those who hate to admit it.

And this is relevant to this thread because it cancels one of the supposed many ways to play the game.

There have been two major shifts in transfer prices while I've been playing here. The first was the drop in prices (actually started before I came here but was in process) which I gather was caused (in part perhaps?) by the introduction of free agents. If that's wrong then please correct me. However if that is right, then that must have been some fart.

The second is the shift we're in now. This could be my intense racism coming into it here, but I believe this was exacerbated by the introduction of a fake country where it is believed that money started to grow on trees, was harvested and then transported to all corners of the real world (actual countries at least). After all the fake country had to get their players from somewhere. Again, a big fart, and while it may have been Mike Franks who introduced the fake country, I'm pretty sure it was someone else who farted.

I'm going to have to be brief(ish) as I'm short on time but I didn't want to forget to respond.

The introduction of free agency did help deflate prices. When you drop the size of the userbase from 60k to 30k as fast as it did, and dump out the orphaned talent into the player pool, that will naturally boost the amount of players available and therefore reduce the prices. Combine that with the rampant reaction by managers to the low prices to expect to build their teams cheaply through player acquisition going forward, of course there's an equilibrium reached, as long as players continue to be dumped into the market at that rate.

However, of course, we're not shedding tens of thousands of teams any longer, and the time spent not training has essentially removed an entire generation of players from the market at many levels. Most of the training being done was aimed at the high-end market, where if a player didn't have 8+ potential he wasn't worth training, and so the mid-level of the market got compressed.

And of course, adding Utopia did cause a sudden spike in demand - the same type of increase that could have occurred if a serious marketing campaign had brought in the same number of new users, except I presume that there wouldn't have been quite as much a surge on the disposable 35+ year old disposable veteran if it were people creating a new team rather than having this be a second team.

More recently we've had the restriction to free agency where 60k+ players are now retired no matter what the age, and geriatrics aren't retired. I've said elsewhere that this has caused the inflation to become worse, and since you haven't called me on it, and yet you call Mike Franks on it here, I assume you must have missed it. Feel free to call me on it now.

What this free agency change has done, has in one stroke removed a chunk of players who are valuable to D1 and D2 teams, probably the most important part of the market, and not just because I'm in it. Now those same teams have to chase the same players as many more teams. So we have from one action, both reduced supply, and increased demand. That's never good. Again I don't think this was Mike Franks's fart.

The part I disagree with strongly is in bold. Teams in I and II are presumably there because they've got the acumen to adjust to the game and its changes, and expecting the game to be catered to them is simply not what I would expect. I think that the focus on trying to keep the players that most of the III and IV teams in the game would require is definitely a better direction - all the saved 125k PGs and 140k PFs in the world are no solace whatsoever to the team in IV that can't afford to pay the weekly wages on that player.

And I still think that the focus on free agency as any sort of solution to this is still missing the point. If the best solution to a problem in the game necessarily depends on people leaving the game, it's time to fold up shop.