BuzzerBeater Forums

In your world its alright to buy (even overpay) for $1k players and then dump them, but
In your world its not alright to buy more skilled players for your team and then look to sell them off for a profit after they play in your scrimmage?

That's exactly what I am saying.
Do you even understand how farfetched your argument is? If he has 8 players, if he buys 3 players, if next buyer is training single position, if they manage to play 48 minutes.

Why not buy 3 x $100k players and look to re-list and sell for $150k? If you are able to pass them on with more training you are acting more within the strucure of the game than buying just to release people out of the system.

If you really train them, then you are adding value to them. If you just sell them with no training why should you get more money for them? Try to get back to the tax topic, if you list your player for more than it's worth, even during the daytrading attempt, you should pay tax. But daytrading is another topic alltogether.
Take the scrimmage scrub as a $1k salary contract player. Just like a 10 day contract.

If you really train them, then you are adding value to them. If you just sell them with no training why should you get more money for them? Try to get back to the tax topic, if you list your player for more than it's worth, even during the daytrading attempt, you should pay tax. But daytrading is another topic alltogether.
Take the scrimmage scrub as a $1k salary contract player. Just like a 10 day contract.

If you buy someone in average GS on Monday and list them to sell Thursday where they arrive at the new owner with perfect minutes and 48mins in a training position you are adding value to the player. Remember the 'day trader' takes him on in his current shape of poor GS and doesnt benefit from the minutes, he polishes him up for someone else to enjoy and benefit from.

My argument might seem far fetched but when you are running at a loss or the margins between success and failure are very thin (as they tend to be in pyramid style games) you again misunderestimate how some people will attempt to create slight advantages.

This in a way is no different to NT's trying to buy opposition NT players with farm teams and then ruin their GS. Why do they do it? Because they can and it might create a competitive advantage.

Back to the topic, you have expressed that you want a tax levied based on nothing other than a personal opinion that stems from your own disatisfaction of seeing players at prices you wouldnt even conceive.

If I buy a player on Monday for $100k and believe I've added sufficient value to justify listing for $150k and someone agrees great.. if their doesnt happen to be a suitable buyer for my listed guy that week - I suck up the wage on the economic update and I can try again the following week.

Maybe I should ask to impose a tax on you for buying a $1k guy and then dumping him.. perhaps whenever you sack a player within 1 month of buying him you pay 20x his wage as severence for ending his career? Perhaps this would stop people treating scrimmages so lightly?

Comon game shape and training do not cost half of his price. I'm not against buying low selling normal or top end. But if it does not sell at that top end or you overprice the player you should pay extra tax.
Your argument is about managers playing on the edge of cheating, deliberately trying to sell players over theyr value to managers who are not experienced enough.
I also had a suggestion how to stop farm teams. But it needs more work to limit these things happening.

Back to the topic, you have expressed that you want a tax levied based on nothing other than a personal opinion that stems from your own disatisfaction of seeing players at prices you wouldnt even conceive.

I want players that do not sell get taxed for 1% of their listing price. Atm there are no downside for fishing clicks or deliberately trying to cheat out money from lesser experienced players. It has nothing to do with which players I like or would like to buy. It's about managers who constantly overprice theyr players in order to gain unfair advantage. Are you saying these managers do not exist? or do you not care that they exist?

Maybe I should ask to impose a tax on you for buying a $1k guy and then dumping him.. perhaps whenever you sack a player within 1 month of buying him you pay 20x his wage as severence for ending his career? Perhaps this would stop people treating scrimmages so lightly?

You can suggest that if you want. I do not buy 1k players as I run 13 player squad. If I get hit with injury bug I can still manage without adding players to my team. You can suggest that sacking wage to protect NT players, I would love a rule that makes you play every player you buy for 5 games or receive no money if you sell him within a month of buying him:) I know my suggestion directly hurts you aswell. You can't come up with any idea that would actually hurt me, why? because I do not bend the rules.

Why "will be"?

Just estonian english. Very neat.

LA-Kukoc wrote:

So like gipsys? Knowing you sell something that is not worth half that much? Deliberately trying to cheat more money out of people who do not know the correct price?

I don't think BB wants to promote racism at all!

So let's stop discussion on this thread with LA-Kukoc. Because it has totally no sense to try to discuss with him, because he knows all best and there is no way to persuade him some of his suggestions are not positive for this game. It's all waste of time to try to discuss with him.

docend24 is right, if there is racism problem with LA-Kukoc, I expect lifetime kick out of the forum for him ;-)

Well on the other hand it is always good to make arguments on such a bad suggestions as this one is to prevent BBs from even be inlined to think that suggestion is vox populi. On this one I hope that chance this would be implemented is already as low as possible and letting this thread be one man discussion is ruight way to go :D

This has taken a turn (and turn and turn) for the worse.

I'm going to close it, we certainly have enough sides of the argument to make a decision if we need to and this has degenerated into flaming.

Please play nice!

/Juiced

Just look at some of the top teams transfers. A lot rounded of sells with some 99.99 etc sells. Thus I came to a conclusion a lot of those top players are sold at their original set price. Ofcourse I can not say how many times has the player been listed, but looking at those evenly numbered sells, I presume that sales that have happened with oddly numbered results are actually the ones that have not had their listing price adjusted. Thus saying that many lowered starting price ends up being a bidwar and sells way above the initial price is unlogical.
Do you have facts to counter my logic?

not sure what has been said in the meantime.

But I have seen people bid 99.99 number just as often as sellers put it in their asking price.

It's psychological I think. If they bid 99 they feel they have him for less then 100 ...

on the other hand, in bidwars, the one going to the 99 often wins, as the next stage is deemed to much for the other bidders.

if one thinks the player is not worth 100, then he might get carried away and bid up to 99, but will refuse to bid the 100.


so I don't think the 99-theory is very reliable