BuzzerBeater Forums

For the teams that go bot without logging in, of course, the players lost are offset by an equal number of newly-created players of about the same aggregate skill.

This is so wrong, that can actually be easily proved by analysing if new teams actually tap the market or not. If they do tap it (and I think most new managers certainly do even if they don't stick around after 3-4 weeks), it means that pretty much any team which logs again after the first time, will invest part of the 300k they get at the beginning in players. Which also means they have improved their team before they go bot and their players are deleted. I can check how long it takes on average for a new English team to purchase a player after being given a team so that we have "hard evidence".

Player prices being high as an adverse effect on mid-and-low level teams. Prices being low has an adverse effect on mid-and-low level teams. Two years ago, prices being low was killing the game. Now, prices being high is killing the game.

Yes and failing to understand and acknowledge the structural differences of the game back then and now will not do anybody any good. There is more than one manager who was in favour of changes to the FA market back then and is in favour of new changes to the market now. You're presenting it as a dichotomy, but it isn't so. The situation is different, it's understandable that the problems and the solutions are also different.

Last edited by Lemonshine at 3/23/2015 12:18:35 PM

The thing that I always am amused by is that no matter what the economic condition, it's always to the advantage of the big teams and the disadvantage of the little guys. Prices at rock bottom? Then it's only cup/arena revenue that matters, and only the top teams will have that, and therefore they can carry more wages and the little guy will never catch up. Prices too high? The little guy will never be able to upgrade their teams based on their lower income~ Gm hurley


That bolded parts not always true. its a 50/50 thing. Like I said putting a cap on what you can buy and other managers jelousy of others because they haven't trained also b3 jealousy .. killed the BB market. BB never got a grip on LI dominance. I think they never will, they tell us SB is the answer then 2~3 zone is based on Sb ,why doesn't it work and when does work why do we need the roster to be worth 2.5 million+ in defensive thngs. 3-2 zone is pushing 665k to work. defense cost major bucks to perform put that on top Outside offense its just way too for anyone. BB just release a pill called "Gdp". they release another pill called "tax exemption". so many other new "tax pills" rather find the honor and guts to kill things.

I don't know if the owner of bb and the staff are in the cahoots with big pharma of the world but the measure and how thing go and are listened too are same. Not being rude or critical of BB staff.

Just release a pill for a price and keep telling the sick/hurt don't get sick/hurt and buy/use that pill. Instead make a cure and kill LI or lp dominance instead of make a real said cure and change things like getting rid of bidding on trainers.. this is money in peoples/managers pockets, not taking money out all the time,. BB Always choosing the minimum.

It no easy fix for the market, but I think a lot of things co~relate to that stress of it. FA is not the answers out right for bb market, It nothing more than another pill/ If look around us today we are swallowing 5~6 new one already.

There s no answer for the market beyond give up how thing work in tactics. I doubt they do that. It easier to create pill with a set back than make a cure.. Some of the things to be fixed are no brainers


Last edited by Mr. Glass at 3/23/2015 12:23:54 PM

it would have been rational to consider firing instead of selling before the change, of course.

Trainerman clearly said he fired some players (who could have contributed to lesser teams) because intended to sell others in the future. That's rational behaviour and one that was not needed when the revenues from a sale were not dependant on the number of previous sales.

Well, that's all I needed to read. The taxes were *always* dependent on the number of previous sales (at least, as far back as season 15, when I joined). What has changed is that for teams with a high number of sales, that tax has increased further.

I don't know that specific player's build, but he specifically seems to be sold consistently low, so perhaps he's a throwback to the old donkeys who had huge salaries and skillsets not commensurate with that, and simply isn't worth having to most teams but can't be fired because the NT saves him.

His build was like this: 8/5/2 4/10/5 19/19/17/8.

So how do you explain that a player who isn't worth his cost, did sell 4 times (one retained) within one season with 5 to 10 bids each time? Past 110k the market has not seen the same inflation, as perfectly shown by american starting NT guards failing to sell at high inital price (but in line with the guidance...

Clearly, the solution here is to punish the guys who have been training those lower tier players, then, by forcing the prices to recede. ;)

I could equally say that clearly whoever wants no changes to the status quo also wants to punish people who train and aim to achieve NT builds ;). Do we really want this? At the moment if you train and try to offload a 200k player you will not make back the money you spent on purchasing him as a youngster and on training.

For the teams that go bot without logging in, of course, the players lost are offset by an equal number of newly-created players of about the same aggregate skill.

This is so wrong, that can actually be easily proved by analysing if new teams actually tap the market or not.

Show me a team that makes a purchase without ever logging into their team, and...

Player prices being high as an adverse effect on mid-and-low level teams. Prices being low has an adverse effect on mid-and-low level teams. Two years ago, prices being low was killing the game. Now, prices being high is killing the game.

Yes and failing to understand and acknowledge the structural differences of the game back then and now will not do anybody any good. There is more than one manager who was in favour of changes to the FA market back then and is in favour of new changes to the market now. You're presenting it as a dichotomy, but it isn't so. The situation is different, it's understandable that the problems and the solutions are also different.

It's more that two entirely contradictory conditions can both be causing the game to be harder for newer/lower level teams that I disagree with. But yet without fail, whatever issue plagues the game, it's always that it disproportionately affects the lower levels, and so BB wants it that way.

On this specific issue, I tend to think that deflation leads to people valuing money over training, and so many "rational" actors to decide to tank and build up money. It also makes the non-market affected dollars more burdensome, so it costs more in terms of actual value to buy scouting points, build arena seats, pay trainer wages, higher player wages, etc. Of course, higher level teams often won't be building arena seats, training, or scouting. The gap in revenue from one level to the next is therefore much greater.

In an inflationary market, the revenue gap between divisions is lower in real terms, while training (which is much easier to do profitably at lower levels) can be much more profitable. The incentive to tank/ demote / buy a new promotion and repeat is much lower, since the cost of acquiring the replacements is higher.

But the long and short of it is that the reason inflation is better than deflation by a wide margin for newer teams is precisely that it helps erode the advantage older and higher level teams have. As long as player prices are low, replacing one set of aging veterans with another, slightly less aging set costs less in terms of a percentage of revenue - so it is easier for teams to keep on top and continue to build that economic lead. When player prices rise, it costs more to bring in the next set of players, which means that more money is flowing out of higher level teams down to the middle and lower tier teams that are building those players (though, of course, keeping some of those players for themselves too I presume). That depletes warchests build up by tanking teams, and causes other teams to start having to sacrifice the quality of their team because instead of carrying another 30k/week in wages, they may need the 500k extra to bring in their next player.

Personally, though it'll be harder for my club in the short term, I love that inflation is eroding my ability to buy a replacement player for the cost of two home games' revenue. I love seeing guys that get the game that I may play in the Cup who are in IV one season end up quickly dominating their III not because they saved up money by tanking or by daytrading, but instead by purchasing smart, training smart and improving their club as they go. I certainly prefer an environment where people can generate value by training players to one where a new team starts training and in three seasons, sells the players for almost nothing.

Well, that's all I needed to read. The taxes were *always* dependent on the number of previous sales (at least, as far back as season 15, when I joined). What has changed is that for teams with a high number of sales, that tax has increased further.

I dont think this information was in the Game Manual before the changes, but perhaps Perpete can confirm if the so-called daytrading tax was not really something new, but the change of rules which were already present. I tend to doubt the information you're giving out here, hrudey, since nobody, as far as I know, has come out showing values even remotely close to 80% after the change even with very few sales in the previous 14 weeks.

In any case, we're derailing the thread here and there is no meaningful impact to my point even if I can change my statement into: "when the revenues from a sale were not as massively dependant on the number of previous sales."

I also found another manager who openly said he was going to fire to avoid the new tax (or the "extra" new tax if what you say is true) (264414.116)

Last edited by Lemonshine at 3/23/2015 1:02:41 PM

I don't know that specific player's build, but he specifically seems to be sold consistently low, so perhaps he's a throwback to the old donkeys who had huge salaries and skillsets not commensurate with that, and simply isn't worth having to most teams but can't be fired because the NT saves him.

His build was like this: 8/5/2 4/10/5 19/19/17/8.

So how do you explain that a player who isn't worth his cost, did sell 4 times (one retained) within one season with 5 to 10 bids each time? Past 110k the market has not seen the same inflation, as perfectly shown by american starting NT guards failing to sell at high inital price (but in line with the guidance...

Sure, like Mark Horner, who sold twice for less than 100k in season 28 and went for 600k in season 29? Or Tobe McCullough, who went for 25k in season 27, and last sold for 838k in January? Or maybe Britton, though I don't know if he's been listed or not but also sold for 111k and 255k in season 28.

I mean, those are all the American NT guards that have been transferred relatively recently.

But of course the inflation isn't the same. The number of teams that can afford 110k+ salary players is flat. There has always been an oversupply of those because of the NT and because people are told not to waste time with lower potential, so the supply and demand curve is going to be different. I kind of wish I didn't know that you already knew that, so I felt like explaining that was actually useful.

Well, that's all I needed to read. The taxes were *always* dependent on the number of previous sales (at least, as far back as season 15, when I joined). What has changed is that for teams with a high number of sales, that tax has increased further.

I dont think this information was in the Game Manual before the changes, but perhaps Perpete can confirm if the so-called daytrading tax was not really something new, but the change of rules which were already present. I tend to doubt the information you're giving out here, hrudey, since nobody, as far as I know, has come out showing values even remotely close to 80% after the change even with very few sales in the previous 14 weeks.

In any case, we're derailing the thread here and there is no meaningful impact to my point even if I can change my statement into: "when the revenues from a sale were not as massively dependant on the number of previous sales."

I also found another manager who openly said he was going to fire to avoid the new tax (or the "extra" new tax if what you say is true) (264414.116)

You may be right. I seem to think the "you have sold x players in the past 14 weeks" was always there and calculated in the cost, but I'm less sure of that now than I was when I typed that earlier. I'm going to just presume you're right since I so rarely sell players anyhow.

Sure, like Mark Horner, who sold twice for less than 100k in season 28 and went for 600k in season 29?

Horner is in the hands of an English manager and since I regularly check who is listing what in all D1 and D2s I know how much he's been listed for (more than twice as much that 838k). His current owner might have overpaid, but at the price he listed him for, which was within the estimated price guideline, there was absolutely no interest.

But of course the inflation isn't the same. The number of teams that can afford 110k+ salary players is flat...so the supply and demand curve is going to be different.

We finally agree on something ;). I would equally state the obvious when I say that when this discussion started several people made it very clear that they feel the problems are at the mid-low end and not at D1/NT level...

^^ your just spouting a lot something to say. I'm sorry I going to call you on it.

The reason why its flat is because there a restriction on mid~lower level team on buying those kind of player it has nothing to do with nt. You know this as factual .

Player prices being high as an adverse effect on mid-and-low level teams. Prices being low has an adverse effect on mid-and-low level teams. Two years ago, prices being low was killing the game. Now, prices being high is killing the game.

A. Low prices don't affect lower and mid-level teams adversely -- quit blowing smoke.

B. Your quote makes it sound like you are advocating doing nothing to correct the problem, merely letting the pendulum swing wildly back and forth, alternately hurting the game one way and then another way. Swell.

It also makes it sound like if someone were to kick the butts of the people in a position to fix this, someone would be breaking a few thumbs. Swell.