BuzzerBeater Forums

A simple solution would be to expand the number a staff members that each team can hire by allowing each team to hire a second trainer. Each trainer could be set to train a specific skill each week (so long as it is not the same skill).

For example:

Trainer #1 - SB
Trainer #2 - OD

Pros: More players can be trained at the same time and therefore reach the full training potential sooner. This would keep the market from being flooded with too many newly trained players (and depressing prices). It would also fit well with the forthcoming improvements to draftees. It also shouldn't be too hard to code.

Cons: Downside is prices for trainers would go up but that could be addressed by increasing the number of randomly generated trainers. Also, this would remove more money from the game's economy through increased staff salaries and transfer fees for the new trainers.

Not realy!

If you have that flood of good players, that does'nt mean that all the team will be poor suddenly!

Why? Because for one buyer, there is one... seller!

Let's say, the price is 5M, the selling team earn 5M - 3% (tax) and the buying team spend 5M. In the end, there is only those 3% of tax that is remove from the game. Then the selling team have now money to spend on the transfer market: 4.85M on that number, there will be a tax from 3% and so on and so on.

If they think that it will destroy the economy (with too much deflation), ok right but then they can try too compensate by giving back those 3% in a way (by reducing salary floor? just an exemple)

Would'nt it be nice to have more players to train? I think the game will be more fun like that, maybe I'm wrong.

Last edited by mplume at 2/1/2017 1:40:21 AM

As the market is now we are on the other scale and have another extreme with very high prices. But it encourages training and makes it profitable if done right(not training high potential trainees with a high level trainer).

The market has been inflated for some time now. So we should be seeing some effects by now of the increase in training you speak of. Where are they? They're not being sold. I don't see the increase in numbers of lower potential trainees, except in the Utopian farm world perhaps.

As for making it profitable, and presumably optimal to train players to sell, I want to play basketball, not sell meat on a market.

Surely some of the players trained from the time that prices started to increase have hit the market. If they didn't we wouldn't have seen any players on the transfer.

As you can see when I quote myself I didn't say there were no players on the market, I said there wasn't an increase.

I don't see the increase in numbers of lower potential trainees, except in the Utopian farm world perhaps.

Selling players, training players, setting arena prices, buying players aso aso. They all seem to fit in the management slot.

Of course, but if there's an overemphasis on training, making it the only way to make money, other than tanking, then the transfer list becomes a meat market as their trainees are only an investment and not something for their own use.

Last edited by Gully Foyle at 2/1/2017 11:49:09 AM

From one day to another one, the users didn't decide : "ok now I train"

I never said anything so silly.

I think there's an increasing in training since 3-4 seasons max.

You can think that.

So it's too early too se the effects I think.

We are in season 37, so 7 seasons later

From one day to another one

7 seasons isn't one day to another one.

I'm afraid that, if Marin makes (again) some changes under the popular pressure, the consequence will be to have a too low market in the futur, when it should be regulated by itself.

You often bring up the popular pressure phallacy. Its not a real argument.

The economy here can never regulate itself so that remark is irrelevant.

Anyone who doesn't think inflation is a problem here has their head in the sand. Its been here for a while, its not going anywhere, and its going to get worse.

You have made a puzzle with what I have said. The goal is to put them back in the good sequence? :p

In any order they were contradictory.

The economy here can never regulate itself so that remark is irrelevant.

Can you explain?

Some things I find self explanatory. Even with almost 20,00 teams the economy is still not large enough to regulate itself. Each variable (on both demand side and supply) is therefore magnified in effect. As such regulation is of either demand or supply, depending on which is causing imbalance, is necessary.