BuzzerBeater Forums

First of all, thank you for looking back into this. I think you have identified the correct area of posts.

I don't disagree with the characterization that at the time he was not disturbed by increasing prices, and that he did not move significantly to reduce them, and that reducing free agency might even have encouraged prices to rise further. I think that a fair reading of the quotes shows that rather than being a scheme by BB-Marin to intentionally impose an economic condition promoting training, it was instead the economy itself was already headed in this direction and Marin considered that as a positive step at the time towards better balance between training and building primarily through FA (the quotes related to that was in one of the non-starred posts.

Wow, there is an awfully fine line between "it was already going toward higher prices and we just let it go there" and "we made prices higher." I think that line is so fine as to not exist. The bottom line is still that through deliberate action or inaction prices were caused or allowed to raise to a point even further than they were already at. I think you see my point -- it was an intentional choice and it favored training over the transfer market.

It was acknowledged that there would be effects on the transfer market. Evidently the magnitude of the effects was unanticipated, but it still remains that the transfer market is now hyper-inflated,at least in significant part because of those decisions. And because of that hyper-inflation, use of the transfer market to create a competitive team is lost for the time being. When the cost of a useful player is more than a full season's profits, I don't think the word "trashed" is out of line.

Not only that, but by favoring training through the economy instead of by reforming training directly, the effects of the decisions reverberate through every corner of BB. Maybe it is time to try reforming training itself and stop interfering with the economy.

Thanks again for your willingness to look closely at all this.

First of all, thank you for looking back into this. I think you have identified the correct area of posts.

I don't disagree with the characterization that at the time he was not disturbed by increasing prices, and that he did not move significantly to reduce them, and that reducing free agency might even have encouraged prices to rise further. I think that a fair reading of the quotes shows that rather than being a scheme by BB-Marin to intentionally impose an economic condition promoting training, it was instead the economy itself was already headed in this direction and Marin considered that as a positive step at the time towards better balance between training and building primarily through FA (the quotes related to that was in one of the non-starred posts.

Wow, there is an awfully fine line between "it was already going toward higher prices and we just let it go there" and "we made prices higher." I think that line is so fine as to not exist. The bottom line is still that through deliberate action or inaction prices were caused or allowed to raise to a point even further than they were already at. I think you see my point -- it was an intentional choice and it favored training over the transfer market.

It was acknowledged that there would be effects on the transfer market. Evidently the magnitude of the effects was unanticipated, but it still remains that the transfer market is now hyper-inflated,at least in significant part because of those decisions. And because of that hyper-inflation, use of the transfer market to create a competitive team is lost for the time being. When the cost of a useful player is more than a full season's profits, I don't think the word "trashed" is out of line.

Not only that, but by favoring training through the economy instead of by reforming training directly, the effects of the decisions reverberate through every corner of BB. Maybe it is time to try reforming training itself and stop interfering with the economy.

Thanks again for your willingness to look closely at all this.

No problem. And on the bright side, since last season Marin has decided that players over 60 TSP and under 60k salaries were too expensive, so they're all eligible for free agency, which surely means that those prices will be dropped down to inconsequential levels. I mean, if "Marin dictates, the market follows" is the law of the land, training was just again killed other than, of course, players with high salaries. That of course was great for me since I had to actually bolster my roster for two promotions to III.5, and so that change saved me tons of money.

Well, okay, maybe it didn't save me that much. Or anything at all. Perhaps now that we know that the prices are too high, we should let the market know FA changed last season, since it seems currently to be persisting in the ridiculous notion that players should cost more than half a league game's revenue.

True, but inflation works both ways: train some irrelevant trainees for a few seasons and instead of selling for 200 or 300k like they used to they might sell for a million. Training can be profitable, but buying the best trainee on the market and then training him with a level 7 trainer is not profitable, but it never was.

I absolutely agree with you, but my point was more that everything is inflated, as opposed to training is cheaper view. As an establishing team, I haven't been shy from going for trainees nobody wanted and using them for value. In saying that, the initial cost of a trainer is reducing the profit significantly.

Also part of the reason that guy may have sold for so high is that teams may be trying to dump some money due to the new hoarding tax.

Most likely. And if that is the case, that team will still have more money than they need at div4. Also, teams recieving just short of 10 million for a single draft pick isn't going to do anything but accelerate inflation. Money needs to be syphoned out of the economy, not redistributed back into the system.

Some of those 60/60 FA's are at such a salary that they are already overpriced at the opening bid. We should not injure our elbows patting ourselves on the back over these guys. As market-correctors they are ineffective.

we should let the market know FA changed last season, since it seems currently to be persisting in the ridiculous notion that players should cost more than half a league game's revenue.

We should let the market-driver-fellow know that useful players cost more than a season's net revenue.

Some of those 60/60 FA's are at such a salary that they are already overpriced at the opening bid. We should not injure our elbows patting ourselves on the back over these guys. As market-correctors they are ineffective.

Wait, are you saying that free agency in itself is not enough to move the economy just based on a few words from Marin, a mere ten or so posts after saying that the last free agency decision was "what he did to the economy" (your words)? I'm going to need time to emotionally process this. I have just spent most of this thread trying to wrap my head around how he stood astride the world of BB, golden scepter in hand, and uttered in an edict "TRAINING UBER ALLES" (my apologies for not hunting down the umlaut) and the markets did move with the trembling of the reverberation of his voice. I kind of liked that world. Now I'm asked to reconcile that image of potentcy with the image of him again standing astride the world of BB, opening up the floodgates of free agency to start filling in supply gaps with the goal of dropping prices, and the market turning their back on him. That's depressing.

As long as you make a mockery out of people trying to help, no help is going to happen. It will be easier to simply leave.

As long as you make a mockery out of people trying to help, no help is going to happen. It will be easier to simply leave.

Welcome to the club!

It appears this discussion is like rearranging the deck chairs of the Titanic.

In saying that, the initial cost of a trainer is reducing the profit significantly.

You're right. Trying to make a profit with a high level trainer is tough. If you're going to go for those trainers it almost makes sense to buy the super high salary ones. I've read on forums that analyzed trainers effectiveness that a lvl 4 trainer is about 92% as fast as a lvl 7 so training for profit is probably best done with low level trainers.

Money needs to be syphoned out of the economy, not redistributed back into the system.

On the plus side at least high staff prices siphon money out of the system, however, I do agree with you that staff prices are much too high. The thing is though, unlike player prices, the BBs can easily lower staff prices just by creating more staff. I wonder why they don't do this?

Last edited by Mountaineer at 2/22/2016 7:34:06 PM

BBs can easily lower staff prices just by creating more staff. I wonder why they don't do this?

I can only assume they want to limit the amount of teams that have access to top level trainers. I wouldn't have an issue with that, but that could be what led to assumption.

For me, "supply and demand" is more a case of "we all have a massive supply of money and we all demand the best". Div4 teams shouldn't have access to the luxuries that div1 teams should (Disclaimer: I am in the lowest division in my country). If you want access to things like level 7 trainers so you can train a world class player, you should have to earn that, not just tank and daytrade a financial security net.

That is why I believe making the hoarding limit divisional is a key strategy to reduce inflation. Flood the market with ready made players, not only to remove money from the economy, but to force salaries that can't be sustainable by wealthy teams in lower divisions, making it necessary to seek promotion. Once teams balance their finances to suit their level, you lose the situation where everyone is capable of having everything.

It will be another 6-7 seasons before I have a reason to promote in the current system, and I'll have 25 million reasons to not care how inflated the economy is.

@ O Bear:

The thing is though, unlike player prices, the BBs can easily lower staff prices just by creating more staff. I wonder why they don't do this?

They want prices high. They have deliberately driven the economy up and up to make training and then selling trainees as profitable as possible. That is what makes this a commodity market game, not a basketball mgmt sim any longer. Your suggestion– lowering staff prices – is an obvious improvement only if this were a basketball mgmt sim.

From another post:

It will be another 6-7 seasons before I have a reason to promote in the current system, and I'll have 25 million reasons to not care how inflated the economy is.

The BB’s are getting their wish. That’s how people are playing this game.

By the way, @ hrudey: you’re dismissed.

They have deliberately driven the economy up and up to make training and then selling trainees as profitable as possible.

I just read the title of this thread. I apologize for participating in it. If you have anything to say about the hoarding tax, feel free. If you want to persist in discussing this unsubstantiated and inaccurate opinion about the BB's role in the economy, find a thread that it's appropriate in.