BuzzerBeater Forums

I love the post. One thing about economist is they dont run a business they get paid for talking. Some call them educated guesses.

I know a lot on economics even down to political economics. In Greece "the polis". I don't agree with reward those who train. Because why put money in the hand of seller/buyers to dictate the terms it lead to greed . That is part of the issue in order to create they need time and money. Training is not free

Economic growth is brought by showing you can create and perform a better system within a system in place. For example creating Princeton team and winning B3 .. I think they should rewarded people who win and build diverse player not just those who train. Diverse creation stimulate and pulls any market in another direction.. its basic rule of competition in economic. Apple iphone vs Samsung galaxy for example. Your not suppose to allow one side to dominate the other like At&t in the 60-80S in usa. A monopoly if you will, that what the market is right now with LI.lp players on BB

Managers like that( diverse tactical users and creators) bring forth financial growth in the market and playing ways. New Tactical growth stimulate the economy. Not just training players to sell, but for growth over all, yes you'll need to buy to stimulate that growth.

Last edited by Mr. Glass at 4/16/2015 3:13:10 PM

If I was a BB I'd rather punish the ones that tank and have the money available to acquire top-tier talent than punish the ones that are on my site 24/7 clicking and seeing the advertisements...

EDIT: That's just my opinion though

True, but if I were a BB I would rather make the game work and forget "punishment."
That's just my opinion.

Snap!!!! +1

One might also say that the instability is the one stability I BB ;)

I'm curious. Do you the guys on "Side A" of this argument believe that they are going to change the opinion of the guys on "Side B" of the argument?
At this point it seems as if this is more of a display of whose testosterone levels are higher.

Correct, but if you read through I think that we need to recognise that part of the userbase has an issue and is extremely disappointed with the current status of the transfer market. This is clear in posts and threads from the last few seasons. Whether this is legitimate or not, it is a problem in itself. Telling these managers that they are the problem instead, that things are fine the way they are and the game is fine even without them seems kind of short sighted. Yeah, I'd rather play against 50k human managers than 20k or 15k.

Does anyone have the weekly user-base data?
It seems to have leveled off in the low 20K range.
*knock on wood*

In my opinion it is wrong to approach a sports-manager game first from its economic standpoint.

The "global" economy is one of the most important things to consider - not from a manager point of view, but from developer side...

Also the sports Management part is embedded to business decisions, that - in General - are influenced by the economy. we have to make decisions like buying trainees or already trained Players, invest in arena and so on...