BuzzerBeater Forums

Just to clarify, it wasn't my intention for this thread to be bashing session on the BB's and the economic changes last season. Mostly, I'm wondering what other's views are on prices and where they are going. Maybe this is hitting higher level players harder then mid/lower ones.

Is it our job to allow both, but keep them within certain bounds? Is it our job simply to keep competitive balance?

Competitive balance is probably most important. Inflation and deflation will happen, but extreme changes can have an effect on competitive balance. IMO, the only major issue with the economic changes from last season is they were so drastic. Someone that invested in a player last season could have waited less then half a season and likely purchased two for the same price today.

2) Under what circumstances should we act without much prior notice? For that matter, how much notice is appropriate typically for different changes?

I'm not sure more notice would have changed anything. As soon as I read the changes I run some numbers and figured "whatever I'm spending on player now should be half of what the player was worth before I heard about the changes". I'd have reacted the same way if i knew the same changes were happening in in 12 days or 12 weeks.

3) How important is it to keep a constant set of rules? There is always a tradeoff between an ability to solve problems and an ability to keep the ruleset constant and let teams make long-term plans.

All managers should expect things will change and that from time to time you will need to adapt to be successful. Though, IMO, it's top priority for major changes to be implemented with notice and done gradually. I'm guessing that most would prefer longer period of slower deflation over a drastic shorter period.

Mostly, I'm just curious of if/when prices have bottomed out, and I usually only look at one section of the market (higher end players).



Last edited by brian at 10/9/2008 3:52:53 PM

Half a day is often enough to get the price of a player doubled. Again, early bids might be an indication of value, but they're an imprecise one at best.

At any point last season, I doubt there was a time you could punch in that same search on the TL and not see mutliple multi-million dollar bids. It wasn't supposed to be an indication of value, but an sign that certain trends in the market have drastically changed.

1) What should be the role of the BB team in the economy? Is it our job to prevent inflation and deflation? Is it our job to allow both, but keep them within certain bounds? Is it our job simply to keep competitive balance, but to ignore market fluctuations as long as that balance is not threatened?

2) Under what circumstances should we act without much prior notice? For that matter, how much notice is appropriate typically for different changes?

3) How important is it to keep a constant set of rules? There is always a tradeoff between an ability to solve problems and an ability to keep the ruleset constant and let teams make long-term plans.

My thoughts:

1) I agree with brianjames that the goal should be to keep the competitive balance. To do so, the BB's should ensure that the rate of inflation is a predictable known quantity - this probably could best be done by inflation targeting (picking a certain rate of inflation and tailoring the rules or payouts to account to effectuate this). It is hard to imagine a situation where inflation or deflation would not throw off the competitive balance, as windfalls will surely be enjoyed by certain teams in those circumstances.

2) Generally, a half a season would probably provide sufficient time to respond - obviously, the more notice, the better for big changes. Probably the best technique is to provide possible thoughts on future direction as you did by estimating the new tax rates for next season. While not held to that, it gives teams sufficient notice to prepare for that possibility.

3) Rules should evolve to make the game better, while at the same time, ensuring the competitive balance. New ideas should continually be implemented. With sufficient notice of future directions, teams should be able to plan accordingly.

1) What should be the role of the BB team in the economy? Is it our job to prevent inflation and deflation? Is it our job to allow both, but keep them within certain bounds? Is it our job simply to keep competitive balance, but to ignore market fluctuations as long as that balance is not threatened?

2) Under what circumstances should we act without much prior notice? For that matter, how much notice is appropriate typically for different changes?

3) How important is it to keep a constant set of rules? There is always a tradeoff between an ability to solve problems and an ability to keep the ruleset constant and let teams make long-term plans.

There are some changes in the price of the players in this kind of games. Some of them occur as the game matures, and others are cyclical fluctuations along the season. A good manager can predict them and adapt to them. But if the BBs intervene, the changes become unpredictable, and this is a bad thing in a strategy game.

So much depends on the taxes for next season. Most have adjusted to the current tax and the transfer market will simply go up or down on the money flow teams have.

A couple of things I think are worth a mention.

After ASW when most countries (most) have finished their National Cup.. who needs to improve or deepen their roster?

When no-one has any money - why even bother to search on the transfer market?

If taxes in the top division go down then prices will naturally rise.... bonuses for the respective league winners will no doubt find their way to the market (or arena depending on next seasons tax levels)

Also - slower training speeds.... i am wondering why people dont factor this into their purchases? The top players in the game at the moment are going to remain the top players if training speeds remain or slow further. The big purchases IMO are always justified because I just cant see the supply of really top players being able to satisfy the demand of the really top teams if the BB Manager base continues to expand.

I think you're underestimating the fact that the supply of triple prolifics is now much bigger than at the end of last season.

That's possible, though supply of this particular range of players has seemed to go down this season, if anything.

Your premise is comparable to someone complaining last season that triple proficients had collapsed in value from two seasons ago (the analogy isn't full because two seasons ago there was a lot less money around than last season, but you see what I mean).

These weren't particularly triple prolific, but players that had at least triple prolific. It was a snapshot of the best big men on the TL.

I'm not complaining either as deflation/inflation have very little effect on my plans (if im selling, it's cause I'll also be buying).

As of the time i wrote this post, there were five at-least-triple-prolific big men on the market. The cheapest one was 2.56 million.

I agree, this is a difficult problem and I think the BBs took necessary actions last off-season to deal with the inflation problem. However, inflation and deflation will be a constant and long-term issue, so you might as well put a system in place to deal with it.

1) What should be the role of the BB team in the economy? Is it our job to prevent inflation and deflation? Is it our job to allow both, but keep them within certain bounds? Is it our job simply to keep competitive balance, but to ignore market fluctuations as long as that balance is not threatened?

Well, in short yet. The problem is that if you have long-term inflation or deflation of player values (to any large extent), it makes fixed-price elements in the game either too expensive or too cheap. For example, if you can sell a player for $1M in one season and add to your arena with the proceeds and a few seasons later, you can sell the same type player for $2.5M then add to your arena, its like the cost of the arenas went down by 60%.

The same thing happens with massive deflation. For example, when HT had its deflation cycle a few seasons back, excellent coaches just disappeared.

Same thing would happen with BB, if you have massive inflation, everybody would buy the most expensive coaches, max scouting and monster arenas etc. Long-term deflation, the reverse. And then those decision elements of the game disappear or become trivial.

2) Under what circumstances should we act without much prior notice? For that matter, how much notice is appropriate typically for different changes?

Honestly, I would be doing it constantly. I would monitor the cash and wealth of the teams in various divisions and increase revenues accordingly. Merchandise Revenues already seems to have some randomness to them...what if they went down by $1k for everybody in div 2 for a week if div 2 teams seems to have a huge surplus or excessive cash flow etc. And the reverse. Over time, I think small adjustments every week are much more equitable then dramatic changes every off-season or twice a season. And if overall, the same about of money was distributed between all the teams, then you wouldn't have much change in the overall player market.

I'm sure people would argue that this adds a level of uncertainty, but its far less than finding out that your division is going to have a 25% tax next season or 50% annual deflation or whatever, don't you think?

3) How important is it to keep a constant set of rules? There is always a tradeoff between an ability to solve problems and an ability to keep the ruleset constant and let teams make long-term plans.

Part of being a good manager is dealing with a little uncertainty and overcoming it. Isn't that the point of having injures in a game like this?

I think everybody should expect the rules to change over time...I think we all want to see the game evolve. Its more a matter that large changes create a lot of upheaval and unhappiness.


Steve

Honestly, I hope that when Paulson needs a new job, BB does NOT hire him to tinker with the BB economy...

And that player in particular, who was 13/11/13, sold for only 2.8m. It's possible that's closer to 1/3 then 1/2 of the value from last season.

That's down a good amount from even 2-3 weeks ago. I guess jbmcrock is right, earlier this season prices were still being propped up a few that had some money left. Maybe prices are starting to bottom out.