BuzzerBeater Forums

Interesting, I didn't know about these randomly generated Free Agents, could you tell me more?

I agree to a point, but eventually they run out of money. Then it would take 6 times longer to accumulate than if they were making 180k. Still, 30k is a bit extreme. I don't think anyone suggested that should be the max.

You have to remember the money they spent didn't just disappear, it goes to other managers who can now spend it on more players. Also, the player they bought is an asset worth quite a bit. Really good 32 year olds can still sell for 5+ million. If a team buys a 28 year old for 6 million and then sells him at 32 for 5 million, even with really modest profits (ie 30k/week), they will still be richer at the end of that transaction than before they bought the player, so no they won't just run out of money.

I agree with you guys that weekly profits affect inflation. The higher the weekly profits, the more prices will increase over time. However, the prices themselves are a function of the money that teams currently have in their accounts. Too illustrate my point imagine two cases. In the first case, the average team has 50 million dollars, but the average profit was 0. Teams aren't making any profits, but would prices be high? Absolutely, they'd be through the roof since every team has so much to spend.

Now imagine this case, the average team has no money currently in the bank, but the average profit is 300k/week. Prices themselves would be really low, however they'd rise fast (high inflation), since the amount of money teams have is increasing quickly.

Interesting, I didn't know about these randomly generated Free Agents, could you tell me more?

Not much more to tell. There were a certain amount released each day until they got the desired result. Can't remember exactly, but was about 20 seasons ago.

You have to remember the money they spent didn't just disappear, it goes to other managers who can now spend it on more players.

Who would get the money if they released randomly created free agents?

...they will still be richer at the end of that transaction than before they bought the player, so no they won't just run out of money.

Prices fall, players are worth less. Your asset isn't valuable in the trading sense as you bought him in the inflated market.

In the first case, the average team has 50 million dollars, but the average profit was 0. Teams aren't making any profits, but would prices be high? Absolutely, they'd be through the roof since every team has so much to spend.

Now imagine this case, the average team has no money currently in the bank, but the average profit is 300k/week. Prices themselves would be really low, however they'd rise fast (high inflation), since the amount of money teams have is increasing quickly.

Yes, both having too much money, and earning too much weekly inflate the market.

You can have a million teams, all training 2-3 quality players at a time, there will still be a shortage. The demand is driven by the percentage of teams who can afford to purchase the talent, not how many teams there are to produce them.

To be fair you have 2 issues here:
1) the draft talent pool is not good enough. When you have a lot more managers it's easier to find and preserve higher level draftees
2) the training is too slow/too limited to be an effective way to build a team

1) the draft talent pool is not good enough. When you have a lot more managers it's easier to find and preserve higher level draftees
2) the training is too slow/too limited to be an effective way to build a team

Having more teams means more draftees into the game, but it also means more teams that want top level players. An increased amount of supply becomes redundant if you increase demand at the same (or in this case higher) rate.

you're not taking into account the normal manager turnover and the fact that with a higher userbase you have less chances of drafts being very poor. Now we have lower manager turnover and lower number of managers, hence issue 1)

Say you're in a micronation. Odds of getting no decent draftee are quite high. Before you had more managers and more were leaving the game every season, but some of their (better) draftees still managed to get on the market. Now you have the same 5-10 managers.

Last edited by Lemonshine at 2/25/2016 2:44:50 PM

How many decent draftees are there for a full league of 16 teams?

it seems to be completely random. I'd assume it's RNG based on probabilites, but of course since the chance of good draftees (potential and starting skills) is very low, then the fewer the users the higher the probability of getting O good draftees. I think they need to adjust the probability of getting decent trainees. The problem is compounded by the fact that lower leagues have been emptied. Half the trainees usually are star or worse potential anyway, but in D2 or D1 that's not enough to compete anywhere. The probability of getting D2-worth potential (allstar PAS superstar) should be adjusted.

but of course since the chance of good draftees (potential and starting skills) is very low, then the fewer the users the higher the probability of getting O good draftees.

I would say 2 to 3 at best in each draft (and that's being generous in most cases). By having 16 active teams in each league, all things being equal, that equates to one quality draftee per team every 5 to 8 seasons. To get 3, that's 15 seasons at best. That isn't enough to meet demand. It's just more teams fighting over the same lack of quality trainees.

Then that is compounded by the fact you need several quality players that have already been trained to fill your roster. More teams needing them means more demand. It has nothing to do with the lack of teams, but the lack of talent related to the teams that can afford to purchase the quality.





Last edited by Perriwinkle Blue at 2/25/2016 5:38:31 PM

Who would get the money if they released randomly created free agents?

Are you suggesting BBs should randomly create Free Agents or maybe release more FAs to deal with inflation because I fully support that idea.

Prices fall, players are worth less. Your asset isn't valuable in the trading sense as you bought him in the inflated market.

You have to remember that inflation and high prices are two separate things. You can have one without the other. Cutting profits will certainly reduce inflation, however it won't necessarily cause prices to go down.

By the way, to clarify my catching up comment, I meant that it shouldn't take too long for a new team to be able to be competitive with an old team. The new luxury tax is a great addition that helps narrow the gap. I am not saying a team should be able to win the B3 two seasons after they sign up (though I honestly don't see that there would be anything wrong with this), but I also think that this game should reward "good management" more than manager longevity.

Are you suggesting BBs should randomly create Free Agents or maybe release more FAs to deal with inflation because I fully support that idea.

Yes, that is one of the things I believe would remove money from the game. I doubt they would ever release NT level players, but if they were to go that way, they could always make them utopian players.

You have to remember that inflation and high prices are two separate things. You can have one without the other. Cutting profits will certainly reduce inflation, however it won't necessarily cause prices to go down.

However it is caused, rising prices is inflation, so they aren't separate things. If teams can't afford the current prices, the prices have no choice but to go down.

I also think that this game should reward "good management" more than manager longevity.

This is where I see the "Oh, but the newbies need to be able to catch up" theory is half the problem with why teams are tanking. They should be able to compete, but they shouldn't be able to buy their way above the level they belong. Once they are knowledgeable enough about the game to beat the league they're in, then they can progress to the next division. That's how the game should be looked at to be profitable, not live in the comfort of bot leagues making millions each season, until you can afford a run at the top.

The notion that you need millions to compete is probably the biggest reason newbies quit before learning anything about how the game works. Teach teams to enjoy the game at a level they can handle, and they might hang around long enough to be successful the old fashioned way.

You're right, rising prices are inflation. But remember rising prices and high prices are two different things. You can certainly have both (which is what we have now), but having one does not always mean you will have the other. That's what I meant when I said inflation and high prices are separate things.

Once they are knowledgeable enough about the game to beat the league they're in, then they can progress to the next division. That's how the game should be looked at to be profitable, not live in the comfort of bot leagues making millions each season, until you can afford a run at the top.

This makes good sense. I support you on this. By new managers catching up, I don't mean they hoard up money in a low division and then buy their way to the top. I just think it shouldn't take them too long to progress divisions with good management.

The problem is high prices encourage hoarding especially for teams that don't have much money to begin with.