BuzzerBeater Forums

maybe my english is to bad and you did not understand?
so for you 50% less profit is preventing nothing?
and with the first part of my post you would not make profit at all...


Last edited by CitB at 3/14/2008 1:51:55 PM

whatever it was just an idea...
im sorry i found nothing that made you happy...

I understand your idea, and it is not bad at all (from my point of view), as it balances the asymmetric money distribution between the manager who trained the player and the manager who daytraded with him.
At the end, it is a way to make daytraders work for all of us!

i.e. I sell a player, the bid ends at 7.00am, a daytrader takes my player for 10k, and immediately sells him for 200k at a better time (weekend maybe, 8.00pm). Applying your idea I would receive 50% of the money (100k) and I finally get 110k and the daytrader also gets 100k for the work of getting up early and the wear of his eyes. ;-)

Last edited by Emilio at 3/14/2008 2:38:49 PM

Of course you can take stronger decisions against daytraders,
but you can also have a stronger opposition from people.
And finally you are not sure whether this strong influence on the market would assure to stop daytraders without any other worse side effects.

I don´t think is a good idea to discard ideas without further discussion... give us at least a reason or comment about it or just don´t say anything.

Good. That is much better ;-)
Now we can discuss (always friendly).

I agree with your opinion about that it is maybe not so good to give money for bad decisions of the managers.

But first, it is not always a bad decision of the manager. Sometimes just a lack of time, sometimes you are living in Australia or any country far away from most of the BB users. I think a good online game should not require 8 hours per day to be suscessful.

Second, daytrading mainly depends on buying at the right moment and selling a the better time to sell. That's a wise strategy, good decisions of a manager, why should we stop him? (following your logic).

Of course, because it is not good for the game.

The best solution should be directed against the cause of the problem and not just to limit the consequences.

I think the origin of daytrading is that some managers without any game time limitation take profit of other managers (much more) with no time, no experience or any other limitation, and also in the case of BB they take profit of the unstable market of a young game.

When the game gets older, the market should stabilized and the problem will be less. But as other similar games, it will always suffer the excessive prevail of the market over the game strategy.

Therefore, the idea of giving a big amount of money to the seller would attack the problem at the root.
But of course, any other idea to make strategy more important than market is welcome for the long-term health of the game. In this sense your idea about in-game performance penalties is completely right.

I hope it helps. Sorry for the length.

Last edited by Emilio at 3/14/2008 4:30:31 PM

Concerning the argument that daytrading favors those with a lot of time: do you really think that acquiring great tactical knowledge takes no time? Any time spent online brings some sort of advantage.

So I have the final solution for any injustice in the system: no manager is allowed more than 30 minutes a week online. Otherwise it is very unfair that he/she can spend such a long time on reading the rules, reading help pages, making line-ups and so on and so forth or whatsoever. Edit: or daytrading or hiring staff or other ugly things.

Amen!

Last edited by Pallu at 3/14/2008 6:31:17 PM

with such a irony... But I really liked that one (= would be funny (=

And finally the solution would be just give each team 18 transfers per season (=for normally managed team that would be more then enough....