BuzzerBeater Forums

Unfortunately its what i said about the transfer market here in some posts ago.(that would not happen if the TL is right controlled, but now its a jungle).

When you are on a league that is really competitive and you are on a big country and also your income production is really limited, you have to be more smart in scouting the transfer market to make a good move in selling-buying than watching your opponents and doing lineups for the matchs.

You will see that in big countrys some of the successfull teams in medium divions are those who made great transactions on the TL or are doing great on training their players.

So as i said before, lot of managers have to pay more atention on the ''TL than on their own league'' and that its not really good for the game.

Last edited by Marot at 8/18/2010 11:59:17 AM

,that can have more money to buy players on the SAME MARKET in which TheMaxx had to buy the players
I think my thought is clear enough...

Yes, it is. But it's reality. Every team has his own conditions and has to manage the team in these conditions as well as possible. That's all.

It is not unfair, because it is the same for all in that situation. That is not to say that is totally fair either.

It may be that if a country userbase reaches a level capable of sustaining its own market, it might be an idea own nationality players are listed on that market only but its clubs have the option of buying in from both markets.
That situation adds a huge amount of complexity to the development side of the game and I imagine the BBs have a long list of other tasks that they believe adds more to the game for less effort.

You and all teams in similar situations will simply have to be smarter.

Smarter in your buys, considering players others wouldn't and probably looking for longer until you find them - and you'll have to be less dependent on train, sell and buy as a strategy.

However, that doesn't make the players you do find unable to improve your team, doesn't stop you getting better at alternative tactics to get the most out of those players and developing mid to long-term strategies around arena building and training to sell.

I also imagine the progressive mid-level Italian teams know a hell of a lot more about wage-efficient training and packing skills into salaries than similar teams in smaller countries.

But as country-specific markets are a total non-starter, you should probably accept that the simple straegy of short-term training to sell is going to be difficult - and and get on with figuring out the best strategy to promote.

I'm not actually convinced that's much of a help to players in the larger countries, doesn't it just increase demand and raise prices for the better domestic players within those nations?

I'd rather go the positive route of regarding teams that invest and play in domestic and drafted players through greatly increased merchandising revenues than go the negative route of capping.

I would like to see more complexity added to merchandising - as I think it could be the main difference in income from team to team once the game fully matures.

Again, we know that those teams are in the same condition... but that doesn't change the fact that the situation is quite unfair.
I'll do a more dramatic analogy using your point:

"People in europe and usa are wealthy. People in africa are starving to death. Yet, africans are all on the same conditions. So they have to manage it by themselves"

I know... too much dramatic. What i'm trying to say is that you can't disagree by saying that teams are on the same boat... the equality of the condition doesn't make it a fair situation because:
- the Competition is local.
- but the Market is global.
So, my efforts have an inferior value on the market than the efforts of a "little country" team. Because my money on the market has the same value of their.

However i want to meet you at half the way... let's say, reductio ad absurdum, that the situation is fair because i meet teams in the same condition:
But why the economy isn't structured in the more logical and realistic way? If a country starts a division of basketball, it doesn't start with the incomes of a "big country" first division... it should start with the incomes of the "biggest country" lowerest division. Please give me your opinion this last thing.

Last edited by RainMan13 at 8/18/2010 2:43:06 PM

However i want to meet you at half the way... let's say, reductio ad absurdum, that the situation is fair because i meet teams in the same condition:
But why the economy isn't structured in the more logical and realistic way? If a country starts a division of basketball, it doesn't start with the incomes of a "big country" first division... it should start with the incomes of the "biggest country" lowerest division. Please give me your opinion this last thing.

You can design new game this way. But now it would caused big mismatch on BB.

So, a more logical economic structure would create mismatch, because "little country" teams would have less incomes than "big country" ones, not allowing them to buy on the market.
So if that is unfair (your words, because you said there would be a mismatch), ALSO the actual system, that makes the "big country" teams have less income than "little country" ones, is unfair.

So you keep saying that you disagree with us while instead, deep in your subconscious, you agree with us.

You can create paradoxes!!!

...

Can you also divide by 0 ??? just curious.... XD

i think that "unfair" is a poor choice of word for describing the problem of unbalanced economies
i'd rather complain about it saying it's "something that makes the game less fun for a big chunk of users"

it's just like the fact that some tactics are more useful than others or the old boring draft system, but sadly this is an aspect of the game much harder to touch for the BB
they tried to some degree by changing the way merchandising and TV contracts work, but the structural flaws (which were clearly there also 2 years ago... i wish i could find the threads where i was complaining about it) will always remain