BuzzerBeater Forums

"It is against BuzzerBeater rules to bid above market rates on a player." and all the threatening text after that.

Got a point there, I guess it should be reworded. Although we know it only applies to cases with multiaccounts or if it's very much above market rate.

Why doesn't human's player have it's value estimated the same way?
"Players like XX have been selling for around $ 1 000 to $ 2 000."
Whilst his salary is $3500. Why then the above text doesn't loo like:
"Players like XX have been selling for around $ 35 000."?????

I do wonder if you read my previous reply about why free agents get sold at 10 times their salary. You can't compare free agents to players from user owned teams - players from user owned teams do not retire if no one buys them.

Also transfer estimation just shows you how much similar transfers have costed recently. I bought a player for 1.4m some time ago, it was the market average then. But since then demand for such players have increased and his transfer estimation is 2m to 2.5m. That might be because when I bought him, there were plenty of other alternatives on the market while it might have been harder to find such a player recently so people are willing to pay more.

That said, I have the feeling that you're currently a bit too excited about the game. Take some time to play and understand the game better, then you would be able to make better informed suggestions.

Last edited by BuzzRBeater at 2/4/2020 8:52:25 PM

I do wonder if you read my previous reply about why free agents get sold at 10 times their salary. You can't compare free agents to players from user owned teams - players from user owned teams do not retire if no one buys them.

That's the point, they should not only be compared but treated absolutely the same.
OR
Not even appear on the market.

That said, I have the feeling that you're currently a bit too excited about the game. Take some time to play and understand the game better, then you would be able to make better informed suggestions.

Quite a lot of assumptions and "talking at" instead of "talking to" going on there, but I sincerely doubt that you'll get warned. I assume this is the line that you are usually given to so I'll pass on making any further comments.




Last edited by Che Gorilla at 2/5/2020 12:40:02 AM

That's the point, they should not only be compared but treated absolutely the same.
OR
Not even appear on the market.

You ain't getting my point here. No, they should not be treated absolutely the same, because they aren't. Players who don't get sold still stay in the team, while free agents retire - hence the current system ensures that the good players stay while the bad players disappear. Or are you suggesting that teams will lose their players shall no one bid on them before the sale ends? Doesn't really make sense does it?

But yes, I would be more in favor of the removal of free agents (save for those on the NT). I do recall reading such suggestions before, and if I recall correctly it was mentioned that free agents were supposed to counter inflation or something, but with player prices very much lower than when it was back then, I don't really see the need for free agents anymore, unless of course, removing it might cause multiskilled players to have inflated skills (but we wouldn't really know unless it happens right?).

Sorry for the assumption, but yes, you do come across to me as too excited, although it wasn't meant to be taken negatively. It's more of like saying that you have a lot of enthusiasm, so hope you know that I do not mean any offense. I might have not been on BB for a couple of years before creating my current account, but based on my experience, I can see that this topic largely stems from your lack of understanding of the game. Yes, you are really sharp and can come up with some good points, but I believe you might have a different perspective once you understand the game better.

Last edited by BuzzRBeater at 2/5/2020 7:28:00 AM

Thank you very much Perpete, replied as well.

Why doesn't human's player have it's value estimated the same way?
"Players like XX have been selling for around $ 1 000 to $ 2 000."
Whilst his salary is $3500. Why then the above text doesn't loo like:
"Players like XX have been selling for around $ 35 000."?????

The estimate is based on prices of sold players. Not on the starting prices on the transfer list.

This had been done on purpose. Purpose is to retire once and for all junk players, do lower skilled players prices not to get deflated, and to prevent buy-ins for one game.

People used to buy quite decent players, play 1 or 2 games, and before the monday, when they need to pay their salaries used to fire players. Or play 1 game and resell. This was possible because game shape didnt dropped after purchase and cheap players were more than abundant, also there was no minimum 3 days time on a roster before resell.
And it works great, there are not so many junk players on the market. And if there are, they just retire because nobody wants to pay 10x their salaries, like in your example 35k for 2k worth guy is ridiculous.

Basicly it was decision in conjunctions of: minimum reselling time, game shape after purchase drop, free agents market changes.

Why they even appear on the market in the first place?
What is the real reason for that? I don't see one.
Except getting the in-game money permanently out of the human's wallets.
Because when they trade mutually it goes from one to another and when player is bought from free agency or retired it goes to system.

Furthermore, it just shows us how many people at early stage stop playing the game. market is packed with those players meaning lot of people have quit. That's sad and bad PR.


If they were not on the market. Player's value in general would inflate.
Quality of the players in clubs would drop, but that would be for everyone so competition toughness would remain the same. Scouting would have more sense as finally it's cost would be justified as even only a good rookie would have some value. Overall it would be much more realistic.