BuzzerBeater Forums

Good job.

So the quality of those players that we get to chose from can't be all that great.

As for the 40 yo FA I don't see a problem there as he fulfills the criteria set for a player to be put as a FA.

You don't see the irony in this do you?

Well, Marin was completely opposed to FA altogether, to the point he was convinced that it was right to retire young players with high salary (so trained) and HoF potential who were good enough to be on the (Italian - largest BB country) U21 radar in the past. Many good players retired because the past FA policy was different, certainly much better players that you see lately in Free Agency.

I don't think it makes sense to bring back retired players, but rather than having 40yo free agents with very bad skills it would probably be better.

Last edited by Lemonshine at 1/17/2017 8:22:23 AM

Apologies for the very late reply. I am busy with real life and also in BB (U21, B3). I'll keep my sentences short or I don't think I'll be able to send this message.

My idea is unretire 10 players per week with > 60 TSP and no max salary. Although thinking about it, an alternative suggestion may be expand the free agency criteria to higher salary, but not everyone is put as free agents. But an advantage of unretiring players is the BB has the choice when to do it. So they may do it when there is not much computation on the site. Unlike free agency which runs simultaneously with the economic update. To protect the regular players, the stamina drop and game shape penalty can be doubled.

It is training speed * 0.001 compounded each season. My idea is technology progresses so training is faster. It also makes training a feasible strategy for everyone since once you stopped, you can be overtaken. This has issues but it is for another thread. Yes, make up the loss of unretiring through increased speeds. The 28 year old players are negatively impacted, so it is a decision for managers if they want to squeeze out the last pops or start training a new player. An extreme case is Wilt Chamberlain won't be a 50 point per game player today. I hope that the change of 0.001 is small enough to make a difference, but not a very big one.

I agree that too much player movement is bad, but my point here is too few player movement is also bad. My opinion now is it is too few, I think I am limited to 1 new player per season. I cannot give an exact number, but I feel that there are also less changes in the roster in my league.

What I mean by mediocre teams is teams that can compete in the regular season, but really needs a lot of luck in important games. My idea is they will be forced to acquire players worth $1,000,000, but will play against a team with players worth $6,000,000. If they try to get $6,000,000 players, they will find that when they have $5,000,000, their income is 0 due to boycott. I appreciate the effort the BB does against tanking. But I am not sure if they have an effect. Although I admit that my statements are limited to my experience in my league. It seems that a lot of teams want to tank so they try to get that 1 win against each other. Is your league doing fine in terms of tankers?

I don't mind the boycott, but I think its rule is mechanical and maybe it is also unnecessary. You only get one season to tank in the highest league and after that the weekly income is not that big. The majority of the income will then be buying cheap players at the start of the season and selling them after training. In the end boycott makes it longer to tank, and teams will just tank longer. Each league will still feel the tanker's effect once per season.

The 10M bonus is too much for me.

If I understood this exchange correctly, here is my TLDR

TLDR; You think prices in the market is just right so unretiring is not needed. I think they are a bit high so I suggest considering expanding the criteria to free agents and unretiring players.

Last edited by Greedy at 1/17/2017 11:10:01 AM

the boycott and unretiring players wans't really linked as far as i'm concerned. the boycott is done to avoid the tanking. Where as you are asking to change FA rules. they aren't really linked

TLDR; You think prices in the market is just right so unretiring is not needed. I think they are a bit high so I suggest considering expanding the criteria to free agents and unretiring players.

And you think i like the high prices? stop joking around! i'm a team in II, freshly promoted. I would love nothing more than to have be able to add a couple of players for free and go straight to the top division! However, BB doesn't work that way. and if i could add them, so would my opponents. So in the end, it's just a null operation, except that we've lowered the market, hence cheating out the managers who train players to then sell them afterwards...

The reason the pricesz are high is because there are now rules in place to avoid cash hoarding & to avoid tanking so that teams can't splash huge amounts of cash around. Due to that, people are burning a lot of cash on the TL, meaning the prices are higher. Means you buy high, but you also get to sell high. that is the effect of trying to get rid of surplus in cash (somethign to which i'm sure GullyFoyle would agree on). currently, there is to much cash in the game. By unretiring free agents, we bring down the market. But that means that there is still to much cash in the game.

Also, something else:

There have been many suggestions made about having a team chemestry thing added to the game. That, combined with the poor GS after the trades, is to counter day trading, aswell as using a rental (buying a player for 1 game, selling him before the end of the week so that you don't have to pay his salary). So there have been plenty of rules being made to lessen the player movement. yet you want to increase it again? that opens the doors back for daytrading, which hurts training & influences the TL in a very negative way. So i'm still not aboard with your arguements.

You want more player movements. Yet that opens the door for daytrading. There is a reason such rules are in place. right now, you don't like the high prices on the TL. Well that is because teams were able to tank. teams were able to stash up a bunch of cash. I have my reservations about the boycott idea, however, those aren't for this topic. this topic is concerning unretiring players, the effects it would have and why certain people find it a good or a bad idea. I've pointed out enough reasons as to why it's a bad idea. To me, the negatives still outweight the positives. untill that balance can be changed, i'd be surprized to see the suggestion considered. But to know for sure, you'd need to have an actual BB post his idea's on the matter

Overall, you have good points but we have very different thoughts on how we want to play the game. As I believe these differences are irreconcilable, I leave it to the BB if they will consider this suggestion.

And you think i like the high prices? stop joking around! i'm a team in II, freshly promoted. I would love nothing more than to have be able to add a couple of players for free and go straight to the top division! However, BB doesn't work that way. and if i could add them, so would my opponents. So in the end, it's just a null operation, except that we've lowered the market, hence cheating out the managers who train players to then sell them afterwards...

I am not joking around. Now I am confused as to why you think so. Of course any change should be a null operation or it would not be fair to everyone. I want lowered prices for everyone. To show you our differences, you believe that lowered prices cheats managers who train to sell, while I believe that managers who train only to sell are cheating the managers who train to compete. That is why lowering prices will give train-to-sell managers what I believe is the just price.

The reason the pricesz are high is because there are now rules in place to avoid cash hoarding & to avoid tanking so that teams can't splash huge amounts of cash around. Due to that, people are burning a lot of cash on the TL, meaning the prices are higher. Means you buy high, but you also get to sell high. that is the effect of trying to get rid of surplus in cash (somethign to which i'm sure GullyFoyle would agree on). currently, there is to much cash in the game. By unretiring free agents, we bring down the market. But that means that there is still to much cash in the game.

We are not solving the "too much cash in the game" problem here. I think any negative effect of the lowered market is offset by the fact that money used to buy unretired players are gone forever unlike transfers between active managers where only the agent's fees go away.

I think my previous post was not clear, so I will emphasize this. Do not take the extreme case of my statements!

1. I said that I want lowered prices.

Extreme case: Prices are too low that a newly promoted team can add a couple of players and win the new league.
Moderate case: Reduce the average transfer price by 5 - 10%

2. I said I want more player movement.

Extreme case: Daytrading
Moderate case: Increase the average number of transfers by a team by 1.

So there have been plenty of rules being made to lessen the player movement. yet you want to increase it again?

Yes! As I said in my previous post, I believe that those rules decreased player movement too much. So I want to increase it, but not at the daytrading level. As with everything in life, we need balance.

If you consider the moderate cases, I think the positive can outweigh the negatives. What do you think of the criteria that I posted and the alternative of just expanding the free agency criteria?

Daytrading is not bad per se, because, on a basic level, it increases the liquidity of the market and helps forming correct prices given the level of demand.

A tax on the sale value and not on the profit however is actually bad. This does indeed stop daytrading, but also discourage people to trade in general.

I'd suggest to test a system for a few seasons where a haircut is calculated and applied to any profit made. If you sell at a loss you pay the normal 3% fees and that's it if you sell at a profit you give up between 3%-100% of that profit, depending how many players you sold in the previous 16 weeks. See if that does increase the number of players traded.

Note that people are not stupid, they are not going to give away money to the game, unless they really have to. So the result of high taxes on sale values does not increase the drain from bank accounts, it simply reduces the trading activity. A tax on profit might drain as much if not more money from the economy depending how much more activity you'd see.

We made these points in the past, but Marin (and other GMs) was never able or willing to entertain a discussion on these points, their reasoning being that the change achieved the stated purpose (removing day trading) therefore it was ok lol. Shutting down the game would also solve every problem from training to micronations to daytrading and even LI!

Last edited by Lemonshine at 1/19/2017 9:06:49 AM