BuzzerBeater Forums

]Nah you should apologise for the hypocrisy in your statements, mate. You can't have it both ways, I think you realise it too. So either FA has always been a minor part of the TL as you claimed on the back of what Marin said or it wasn't. It cannot be both at the same time and you (and Marin) will need to decide which narrative you prefer to carry forward.

How big a factor would free agency be if we went from 20000 teams to 2000 teams overnight and every player on those bot teams was placed on the TL? How big would it be if we lost 10 teams per week? If your expectation is that I have to say that it has the exact same effect in those scenarios and not doing so is, as you put it, "hypocrisy", I'm doubtful anything I have to say in response to any of your other comments is worth my time or yours.

So we're all (including you and hrudey) finally on the same page that FA do indeed affect prices and they are not as marginal as some people (including hrudey and Marin) wanted everyone to believe until not long ago?

Do we all agree that FA without restrictions would actually bring the prices down or not?

Since you've decided to continue to involve me, I'd like to set the record straight about my 'hypocrisy' and correct your misrepresentation of my statements and positions regarding free agency.

To be explicit, I am saying that the effects of free agency *NOW* would be very limited. We have a stable userbase for the most part, and the number of players lost hardly would move the needle. I also, simultaneously hold the belief that unrestricted free agency in the time where we dropped more than half of the teams in the game did contribute significantly to the rampant deflation in effect at the time. And it's not some opinion I've just come to (or, what, "finally on the same page" was it?).

For example, here's an excerpt from a conversation we had about this literally a year and three days ago:
(268316.25)

For years there was a glut of players because of decreasing userbase flooding the market with FAs, and people deciding that there was no point in training since they could just go pick up a player at will from the TL. And this is the result - suddenly the player supply has dwindled, so unsurprisingly the prices have increased.

Or this: (268635.89)

Anyway, yes, the reason FAs were restricted initially was that the market was severely deflating, so much so that there was a perception that the value of training and players was too low to justify continuing to do that. Instead, the value of dollars on the TL was so high that it was commonly accepted that simply refusing to compete, carrying a salary-floor level salary, and accumulating a season of cash and then splurging on more wages was the smart play. And it probably was at that point, which unfortunately is a pretty sad situation for a game to find itself in. Kind of like WarGames, the only winning move was not to play.

Now, of course, a year ago we had a sudden influx of new teams and new dollars, and they were all hot and heavy for the kind of players that teams had been avoiding creating because there was no profit in it. So the prices on the players who were available (many of whom were the old players who would have initially trained before the deflation took off) went way up. The price of trainers shot way up too because there were suddenly over a thousand new teams who had level 1 trainers.

Or: (268635.96)

That's why the limits are where they are - because previously when they were lower there was exactly the problem where there was too much talent on the TL via free agency and prices were depressed. At the risk of wearing my pessimistic hat and ruining my BB mama bear image, I presume if there was any real hope that the number of new users was going to surpass the number of users lost, and thus the demand vs. supply situation accelerate towards undersupply, Marin would likely have made some acknowledgement of that when asked in the thread rather than mention that he liked the rising prices.

There is plenty of room for disagreement in our two viewpoints in this, so there's no need to distort what I have said to create some discussion points. I don't think I need to cite my posts discussing that Free Agency wasn't going to be a cure to inflation then or now, though, as I think that's pretty well common knowledge.

Last edited by GM-hrudey at 3/24/2016 3:35:41 PM

I'll let people judge whether it's intellectually honest, blaming price deflation on FA rules and then saying that re-enacting the same rules will have no effect. Also someone should explain why when prices hit rock bottom FA rules were very loose and now that prices are sky high they are actually tighter. You see, you can argue all you want, but it will never logically add up.

You're suffering from hypothermia, so we wrap you in warm blankets and try to raise your temperature. A year later, you're running a severe fever. It's the same thing - your temperature is outside the normal range, at a dangerous level. Should we try to raise your temperature again?

And the rules aren't tighter or looser now, incidentally. Some players now that would never have qualified for FA before (guys above 60 TSP and who didn't make the old salary requirements but are under the 60k salary now). Other that would have been saved are now lost (the 60k+ guys).

Now, if you want to say that the current parameters of free agency are inadequate for a stated goal, that is fine. Heck, I wouldn't argue against it if my opinion were asked about adding every player into the pool. But if you seriously want to consider the topic of intellectual honesty, I suggest again that you consider how much effect free agency would have if we lost 10,000 teams in the next two seasons vs. how much it would have an effect if we lose 500.

Last edited by GM-hrudey at 3/24/2016 9:10:24 PM

It would be better than doing nothing.

Still don't get how you think training is king?? Have a look at any d2 team upwards in BB and I bet you no more than 2 of their starting five are homegrown players...

Sorry for the off-topic, couldn't help it
(91534)

I know about the incoming demotion, that was planned for this time.