BuzzerBeater Forums

Thanks for the quick response.

My response would be, why does there need to be a line past which teams cannot spend? I agree that if you are already below 0 you should not be able to purchase anything. However, if you have 500k and want to spend 600k why should this not be allowed as it may be the difference between winning and losing a championship.

Purchasing staff can often result in negative bank balance, so why not allow it with players. For example if I have 100k in my bank, and buy a staff member for 98k. Then I will have 2k left, but perhaps my current staff members salary is 50k, then I will go in to the negative. So why is this not taken in to account when buying staff?

500k seems to be the line that BBs have decided should result in bankruptcy if left there for too long, so why not allow managers the freedom to spend whatever they wish? If the manager uses his discretion to purchase a player that might risk putting him in bankruptcy then isn't it his decision?

The same points were discussed before. There would be a lot more bankrupt teams. As people tend to spend more if they have the means available. So they should actually move the bankrupsy line to -1mil. Thus making no difference from -500k and 0. Remember it changes nothing. You have extra cash, your bidding opponent has it aswell. Current system is ok, no player leasing please, make deals with the money you have available.

This is the only game Im playing, but I played hattrick in the past for like a two years, debt limit was 20M CZK and I was 12-17M in debt all the time.
This was not the reason why I quit, but could be harder for me to stay in here, because I cant help myself if I can bid for something, I doesnt have.

Last edited by aigidios at 4/27/2010 3:22:04 AM

Fair enough, I just thought the idea of an "overdraft" system that allows you to withdraw slightly more money than you have would be useful in many circumstances.

It was mentioned that the bankruptcy line should be moved to 1 million, but that is not necessary. Keep the 500k line as the bankruptcy line, but let me withdraw as much money as I want. If I wish to spend 1 mil when I only have 600k then I don't see why I shouldn't be able to, it is up to the individual manager. And in real life you can do this.

I understand your logic. But also in real life are lot of people which are constantly in debt (me included:)). However the point is that in the game is noone who could earn any money from it - and aditionally - most of loan payments would be done only by these which doesnt earn very much. Therefore it is just against the point to make things more difficult for settled div1 teams.

Last edited by aigidios at 4/27/2010 4:44:09 AM

I can see a solution:

A team goes into debt. A team with lost of spare cash loans money to the team with debt. Collateral is placed for the debt -- say a star player. Team does not pay off -- loses star player to team that already has lots of cash. Rich get richer -- BB now has become more "realistic".

It gets better. Team C realizes there are lots of teams in previous situation -- rich teams, teams living beyond their means. Team C decides to match creditors and debtors, taking a little off the top of each transaction. BB financial world now has become more "efficient", the free market improved by financial services.

It gets even better. Team D sees booming market of banker Team C. Realizes that rich teams can get much richer if they, too, start borrowing to loan to teams in debt -- "leverage" is how Team D describes this deal. Rich teams now measure their wealth by how much debt they can accumulate and leverage as they help out those poor unfortunate debtor teams, who because of competition and poor luck, can never seem to get out of debt. Indeed, to get loans, many of them simply are turned into farm teams for the creditor teams. "Tenant managers" we now call them.

And, finally, a few financial wizard teams like Teams C and Team D -- the only ones who are positioned to fullly understand all these complex financial interactions -- now go collectively to BB developers and "suggest" improvements to the game that suit their interest. If the game is not "improved" as they wish, then they have the power to bring the entire game down through collective, universal financial ruin.

But luckily people are too smart to ever let this happen.

And, finally, a few financial wizard teams like Teams C and Team D -- the only ones who are positioned to fullly understand all these complex financial interactions -- now go collectively to BB developers and "suggest" improvements to the game that suit their interest. If the game is not "improved" as they wish, then they have the power to bring the entire game down through collective, universal financial ruin.

We have a Fed specifically set up for this that even contains 3x BB's. *cough* signature *cough* :D

Time to call Michael Moore!

We've discussed this before, and our policy is basically that there has to be a line past which teams cannot spend, and what better line is there than $0?

There's always going to be a fixed line somewhere, and we've never really seen a reason to establish that line in negative figures - it's always going to be relative, right?

We (the BB team) rarely post in Suggestions threads, as we find that any posts that we make tend to mold the shape of the discussion, and we're much more interested in reading on the forums what the community thinks than how the community reacts to what we think.

In this case, where we've had previous discussion and a concrete policy, I feel comfortable posting this, but if a truly compelling argument is made to allow users to go into debt, we're all ears.

The only reason for something like that are different times of financial expenses and revenues based on country i.e. Monday financial update and gate recipts after match. But then again this could be taken into account (unless technicakl problems postpone something) and there are timezones that make it even trickier (although those times for gate receipts differ even within one timezone) so I think laissez-faire is better choice here.

naker_virus, I gotta disagree. Well it's might be manager's rights to do what he wants but in real life, it's the banks decision if they want to lend money or not. everyone's finance is different and u can't lend money out to ppl just like that it will make BB economy very complex. by lending out money carelessly like that will cause recession as you already see in the U.S and also cause an inflation in market. Another example is the Rudd's 14k first home owner grant, suddenly all every one throw out all their reasoning and happily took up a loan because they want to benefits the 14k, causing a sharp surge in property price.

and As you've seen in previous thread, some canadian dude went negative but can't figure where he f00ked up. i am saying is, for logical ppl is fine but when it fall into the wrong hands......

rephrase....there are alot of dumb ppl in the world and u dont want to see 25k teams go bot because of bankruptcy lol.





Last edited by datzilla at 5/9/2010 6:49:02 AM

wow i love ur solutions....spot on! the rich get richer, the poor and the dumb go bot.
even tho i love to punish the stupid but i hate to vs bots day in day out...