BuzzerBeater Forums

Wait a second, you mean if the price of player is setted lower than for which he is sold, the percentage cut for the club should be higher than it would be normally?

I dont know about percentages, but this makes sense and I think it could work.

The way I am understanding the idea is helping the seller to balance risk. When placing a player on the TL, there are, basically, two options: low ball or shoot the moon. Low ball can successfully draw the player a lot of attention and result in a fair / decent price, but there is a chance that, for whatever reason, the bidding never catches fire, the prices do not rise, and a good player becomes someone else's bargain. With a high initial price, I find that if the price is deemed fair, there is never a three-day bidding war -- more like a half-hour bidding war, if things go well, and the price received is almost by definition acceptable to the former owner. In other words, there is a greater risk of a low initial price failing to produce what the owner deems a fair price.

By fiddling with the transfer tax, a little of this risk can be mitigated. Not much mind you -- on a $500,000 player, we are talking maybe a $50,000 difference in the tax if it were to be reduced by 10% -- but enough to help encourage managers to begin with a low price.

I wonder about the effect this could have on day traders. Say a day trader buys on Tuesday a player for $400,000 and flips him for $750,000 on Thursday. If he were to take more of a chance on a low starting figure on Thursday's price, then maybe he find fewer greater fools.

Indeed!

Imagine a player which real value is 1000 000.

Because you done some trades that week already, train him only for 3 weeks and want to sell right away because he is not so efficient for you right now or whatever, you will put him on TL with a notice that you can get from him 87 percent of his price.

So if you will put him for a 1M and sell him for that price, but you will get in fact 870 000.

However if you will set the price to the half (lets say) 500 000 and he will be sold for 1M, the percentage loss could be halved too - so you will get 93 percent, therefore 930 000.

...

I dont see anything wrong in the idea that these percentages would be tweaked lineary according to what price you set/how many you will get...

Because if you will put him there for 0 - will be the same for you, if he will be sold for 870 000... because you will get 100 percent. And everything tops that is your bonus...

first of all we need more stable servers, else the bb will get many angry users with such system.

And i don't see a real benefit of it, maybe there wll be someless players listed and lot more bidding wars - which especially hurts players who can not list at prime time where enough users online who could compete in a bidding war so maybe more user was the second necessarity for it.

Im not surprised the transfer market is out of control, its a consequence of how the economy is on BB.

Nothing more to say.

The relationship doesn't seem too strong, but when I've gone without buying a significant player for about a season, and have maybe 4-5 million in the bank, it looks like there is a 1-1.5 star drop in this rating.

Just my recent observation: I was pretty consistent at 5 balls, even just about all last week even though I had 3.5 million in the bank. After selling a player on the weekend, I am now over 5 million and it dropped to 4 balls today.

On the other hand, I have been at 1-1.5 balls for "afraid to be transferred" but jumped to 4 balls today.

"The manager is doing everything possible to improve the club" depends mostly on how much cash you have lying around in the coffers.

Ok, I got up over 20 million in the bank for a short period and noticed very little effect on this rating. At most I went down to 4.5 balls (but this even be a random blip since fluctuation between surveys is possible, even if nothing happened in between). As of this morning I still had 11 million in the bank but a 5 ball rating.

So, from that I guess there are a few possible conclusions:

-There is no effect on this rating from cash lying around.
-The cash has to be lying around for a longer period of time.
-10-20 million is not enough cash to see an effect.
-You can offset the cash sitting around by making roster moves or just simply bidding on players.

In any case, this rating is certainly not as cut and dried as "x dollars in cash" in your bank account.

the huge huge huge hole it this new tax adjustment idea is that owners can bid on there own players.

example i want close to 1 million for this player but if i set him for 1 mil im only getting 75 %
so ill set him at 10000 yay now he is at 97%
now ill bid 100000 on him, now ill be 500000 on him, now ill bid 1 mil on him
yay a 97% on the 1 mil i wanted to set him at.

and we welcome back the age of day traders.

bad idea while players can still bid on there own players, which is stupid by the way.

good/great idea if we eliminate being able to bid on your own players.

I think that how often you make transfers plays some part in that rating as well. If you are never making transfers, you will undoubtedly be building up cash so it might seem to be the cash-on-hand. If you are making too many transfers it might be negatively reflected as well.