BuzzerBeater Forums

I think the key difference between what we are doing and what hattrick has done is that revenue is being driven by what level you are at.. and since you do have the power to outcompete people at your level you can promote yourself.. without this mechanism the age of the team really is what determined how much money and how good you were. We are trying to create an economy in the long run where teams must spend all of their revenue in order to remain competitive at their division... those who spend their money well will promote and have more funds available, and those that don't will drop down.

I very much appreciate this discussion.. we have had many debates and have actually an economist on staff now analyzing these sorts of problems from a economic theory perspective. One thing i'd remind people in the discussion is that money is all relative in a market system... what matters is whether their are enough goods available that everyone can buy something that they want. We need to make it so that rich teams are spending all their money on rich team players, so as Oxidus says, poorer teams can afford to buy non rich team players.

The alternative is to try to build a system in which no team is richer than any other team. Without some sort of draconian systems in place to share revenue etc, i think this is an impossible task. We are hoping to setup a meritocracy where all teams in the same level are competing amongst themselves on an even playing field and can promote themselves to compete on higher levels.

I think the key difference between what we are doing and what hattrick has done is that revenue is being driven by what level you are at.. and since you do have the power to outcompete people at your level you can promote yourself.. without this mechanism the age of the team really is what determined how much money and how good you were. We are trying to create an economy in the long run where teams must spend all of their revenue in order to remain competitive at their division... those who spend their money well will promote and have more funds available, and those that don't will drop down.

I very much appreciate this discussion.. we have had many debates and have actually an economist on staff now analyzing these sorts of problems from a economic theory perspective. One thing i'd remind people in the discussion is that money is all relative in a market system... what matters is whether their are enough goods available that everyone can buy something that they want. We need to make it so that rich teams are spending all their money on rich team players, so as Oxidus says, poorer teams can afford to buy non rich team players.

The alternative is to try to build a system in which no team is richer than any other team. Without some sort of draconian systems in place to share revenue etc, i think this is an impossible task. We are hoping to setup a meritocracy where all teams in the same level are competing amongst themselves on an even playing field and can promote themselves to compete on higher levels.

Thanks for a great answer. If you manage to achive this it will be an excellent game. And as I said before, it really looks like you taken care of a lot of the issues that have gone wrong in other games.

if theres an economist working on this he should understand supply and demand, the supply of good players is so good right now that the price is getting driven down right? Am I the only one seeing guys who are top draft picks going for like 400k or less? This used to be the type of player that when he went out there all the big boys worldwide competed over, they dont have to now, they just wait for the next ones timer to start reaching a closeout. I also seem to remember seeing a player in the NBBA mention that he earned 700k a week. These players are dirt cheap to someone with that kind of income considering the expenses these teams are facing. Even with top rated staff I dont think theres any players with a salary of 10k out there, so they pay at most 200k a week in expenses. These players are EASY for them to get right now.

I guess my concern is that teams I have no hope of matching financially atm are going to load up on 18 year old studs all the way down the depth chart of their trainee position and get not only a financial advantage but a player advantage that won't be surmountable. The work they would have had to do even as a top tier team over the course of seasons worth or work they are going to accomplish in a few weeks, just in time for training to be accelerated for younger players.

Last bit to note, I had 2 other active teams in my bracket for D.IV last season, one ended up in my D III division, the one who beat me on the way to winning it ended up in a different one. I keep tabs on these guys because playing against them made the game fun and we generally take a bit of pride in how tough we considered our bracket to be. One of them is in a private league with several NBBA teams and has gone 2-1 against them so far, his only loss to the Demon Hoosiers. That is going to completely end, not because anyone in that division is a better player, just because they were here a bit earlier. So in a meritocracy based system, explain how that makes sense?

My point, exactly.

The economy needs to work long-term, not just be geared to the present moment.

I have not seen a reasonable explanation as to how reintroducing these players helps the economy. It doesn't. Any player being sold by an active team after the financial update faces competition from 1000 or so teams being deactivated per week after our initial population explosion. As a community we grew by 500% in active teams in one season and now that number is going back down to reality.

The problem is at 1000 teams a week going under and the pick of their litter being put back into circulation you are devaluing what teams have done up to this point. I don't expect a top tier team to agree with what lower tier teams are saying here. With the influx of young talent they are being put in a position to add incredible potential to their team and stay on top for a long time to come. People keep saying these players arent that good, what Im saying is before the supply of 18 year olds with top of the line potential was low, now it is definetly not.

People who were looking at going for the long haul generally didn't sell a top draft pick with talent. When one did it created a buzz in the community. I remember when Serif Ceri created a stir and calls for crackdowns on financial cheaters. Ill have to look it up again but he seems like he is above average in the current market, not even worth noting on the forums.

What I find notable is that aside from BBs many of the people who don't seem to find this a big deal are top tier teams who benefit most from this. I don't expect any of this to change the decision on reintroducing players, Ill change my financial strategy to try and cope and hopefully compete. But I bet if you watch every top tier team over the course of the next few weeks, your going to see a large number of young, high DMI, high salary, draft pick style players getting added. Couple that with more rapid pops for younger players soon being introduced and advancing through divisions will become much harder, NOT because top tier teams earned it. Because a large supply of players cheap to them with great upside is being introduced. Im sure they would hand my team one heck of a loss, my team doesnt stack up imo against the DMIs Ive seen at that level but as I stated earlier, I've seen a team I started with compete with the big boys in private league games, where minutes don't matter and there are no holds barred. Digging for Change won the games they won because that team worked hard enough to field a team that was good enough to beat those teams. Once again 2-1 vs NBBA. Is he/she that good or are NBBA teams that bad?

Too bad its not going to matter because the economy is going to work against teams fighting to reach the top, not necessarily the skill of the players at the top. So teams with cash enjoy, as one guy in a forum recently said, hes the jaws of the feeding frenzy at hand.

Then please don't make comments in forums the comment how you (the GM) benefit from this and me the struggling Div III team can only lament.

I understand a Game Master is or what ever a GM means is supposed to regulate activities. This manuver seems to indicate there was an issue from the top having issues with getting beat by teams like me instead of what the real issue is.

i agree with you that the players the top teams are buying now do not have large enough salaries... we need to infuse the game with better players with higher salaries.. this is why we are going to be accelerating training after the allstar break.. we would have started it immediately but we thought it prudent to give our users a warning before doing such a drastic change.

I guess my concern is that teams I have no hope of matching financially atm are going to load up on 18 year old studs all the way down the depth chart of their trainee position and get not only a financial advantage but a player advantage that won't be surmountable.

That is going to completely end, not because anyone in that division is a better player, just because they were here a bit earlier. So in a meritocracy based system, explain how that makes sense?

So I don't expect teams in DIV to compete with teams in DI.. but i expect the game to be fun because teams in DIV can compete against teams in DIV, and promote to DIII.. and then to DII, and then to DI. If I were to make it so that DIV teams could compete against DI teams, by making the financial structure flat (i'm not sure if you are advocating this.. but it seems to be what you are suggestting) so that you could better compete for all the players, then I think the problem that older teams would have advantages would be even worse... this is what I gather is the problem with hattrick.

Taking a step back, it seems you are most upset because you can't get on the transfer list and find players to improve your team that you can afford right? This is because all the rich teams are buying those players at high prices... we agree that this a problem, we think the solution is to make the rich teams spend their money on even better players so they will no longer care to buy the players that you could use to improve your team.. just like you don't both to buy players that dont' improve your team right now.

Please if you still really disagree with our approach tell us why... we do appreciate the feedback

Then please don't make comments in forums the comment how you (the GM) benefit from this and me the struggling Div III team can only lament.

Can you link to the post where I said this? (I ask because I make a ton of posts each day and I can't remember offhand where everyone was).

I understand a Game Master is or what ever a GM means is supposed to regulate activities. This manuver seems to indicate there was an issue from the top having issues with getting beat by teams like me instead of what the real issue is.

If you're implying that GMs asked for this to happen to strengthen their teams, that's so far from the truth I can't even describe it.

If it's not what you're implying, then I don't understand what you're getting at.

fwiw i agree that we are definitely giving an advantage to teams who are currently in the top division.... this is because they are earning more revenue that the poorer teams. I think we've given a coherent argument as to why we are doing this. Your worry seems to be that doing so at this stage, given the other changes we are creating is going to create an insurmountable advantage for those teams. First of all.. in the short term you need only worry about competing against players within your division. Second, once promoted you will receive increased revenue, which should allow you to compete with players on that level. It should be that immediately upon promotion you start out low within that level and have to work to dominate the next level yes? On the flip side... when a top team gets demoted their income will be reduced, and they will have to sell players because (in the long term) the salaries will match the revenues for the division... this is certaintly not the case now.. but we are trying to accelerate towards this equilibrium, and the salary/revenue structure has been designed such that when the expected equilibrium of players is reached this is true.

in truth i think we made a fundamental mistake not giving teams better players from the start....or players with skills set according to their starting division. This of course would have probably outraged a lot of people as some players would arbitrarily get a better starting place.. just as giving top division teams more income does now.

I understand a Game Master is or what ever a GM means is supposed to regulate activities. This manuver seems to indicate there was an issue from the top having issues with getting beat by teams like me instead of what the real issue is.

If you're implying that GMs asked for this to happen to strengthen their teams, that's so far from the truth I can't even describe it.

This is supported by the dev team. We need to make this clear from the getgo. GMs have absolutely no advantages over any other user at all. It was never the case and never will be the case.

We listen to all opinions, including those from GMs. But we would never make a decision to advantage volunteer workers over anybody else.

Edited by BB-Oxidus (28.11.2007 01:28:12 CET)

Last edited by BB-Oxidus at 11/28/2007 1:28:12 AM