BuzzerBeater Forums

that doesn't count, this was said before^^

Nice reply, you really touched all the important issues, and like I said before in my replies, I essentially agree with your views.

The one thing I don't fully agree with is the price to set when transfer listing players (and this isn't even related to the main topic itself). I don't know how this goes in the top divisions, but for the kind of players I buy or sell, listing them at a low price has the risk of ending up with an "unfair" bid, but it also helps gather more bidders. You may notice that when players come on the TL as FA, some players place lots of 1k bids to keep tabs on the players, I have done it myself. If one starts with a higher asking price, fewer people may notice it, and there's a bigger chance the player will go unnoticed if people set a low limit because of the newly arrived free agents.

Other than that, the idea of having a warning sign saying "Warning: the player owner is bidding on the player!" could be introduced, but I don't see much need for it, to be honest. If the bidders notice, they should stop bidding. If they don't and the price is not overblown, they're free to keep bidding. If the price goes over any reasonable valuation and someone still bids, then that's just throwing money away.

Other than that, the idea of having a warning sign saying "Warning: the player owner is bidding on the player!" could be introduced, but I don't see much need for it, to be honest.

you could see clearly the teamname, where he is and who is bidding.

And as it stated in the thread, there are other ways of achieving this without allowing the " sleazy" behaviour that we all agree upon.

I stated earlier , I have no issue with being able to buy the player back.

Saying the argument has no credence is a ridiculous comment, also, you state that the only reason someone would keep bidding is if they feel the player hadnt met the market value, but that is not the point of this. The true value of a player is what you fairly get him for, I do not class fairly as interference from the owner of that player for the sheer intention of completing more money. If you was going to get X player for say 400k but ended up paying 500k because of the owner hicking the bids, then you have spent 100K MORE than a fair market place was asking for at that given time. He may well have been worth 500k, but thats not the point, it is outside interference in the variable that is the tranfer market.

It is clear that the system isnt the best way to offer a buy back option to teams, and that a buy back option could be facilitated without involving the ability for a manager to encourage a price hick on his player, an action which nobody thinks is positive.

With that being the case, why the reluctance to address the system to offer a buy back system and stop this " sleazy 2 behaviour" from the game???

I just read back through the last few posts and it has been described perfectly in one of the last posts

Second Natural Highest Bid +1 = True Market cost for that player

Not

Second Highest Natural Bid + Owner Bids to price hick + 1 = True Market cost for that player

I think that the easiest way to explain why it is an unfair option, and interferes with the markets true values.

market values are unfair, because the market is too flexible(even withhin a day), and if you see the owner as a part of the market you also have a natural market ;) If the owner buys him, it is the same buissness for him, like when you buy him.

Or would you say that the value of a player switch from 500k to 1000k within a day?

If you thought the player was worth 400k then you're to blame if you buy him for 500k. If the only other bidder is the owner, then he loses money if you stop bidding at 400k. If there are others who are willing to pay more, then that's their problem.

In response to GM-rip, the buy-back button could be introduced. When listing the player we could have an option "Buy player back if bid is below X". But the way it would work would be having an automatic bid of X being placed at the end of the auction, of the bid at the time was lower than X. If there were other bidders still willing to go higher, the auction would proceed. If not, the owner got his player back.

Last edited by rcvaz at 7/31/2010 5:34:30 PM

Back within this post are the suggestions of how to facilitate a buy back

1. Yes, you have a buy back button, if used, the manager is charged, either current bid on that player or a market value ( Although this would be difficult with the value system being so inept)
2. You simply dont have a buy back option, and take the view that once a player is on the market, you have made that choice, so encourage caution and make people aware of the risk involved of their choice
3. You may wish tio employ sytem 1 but only allow a team to do it once ot twice a season
4. You could charge a team the tax penalty they would have incurred if the player was sold for market value ( Determined by current bid or a default value for that type of player
5. You could just employ a tax rate , for example only ,Div 3 teams $150,000 per player , Div 2 $200,000 per player and so on

These are just ideas and I am sure not perfect, but atleast they do not involve any corrupt behaviour and if everyone knows the situation of a new system then we can all be responsible for the outcome.

I do not agree with the red flag comment, well not completely, sometimes it does mean he is above value, but many players actually go for less than they should in the market as well, so it doesnt always mean what you claim.

I agree the word VALUE mean so many different things based on so many variables at different times of the season, I personally think the one value that should not be allowed within the ever changing market conditions is a fake interference for a " sleazy " or as i call it, corrupt reason.

It seems that the dispute with this is the buy back option, as I said before, nobody agrees with managesr even having the opportunity to price kick their players in the market for the simpe reason or trying to get more money, so I cannot get away from that surely a new system need to be sort that stops an action that nobody has got a good word about, and then work out a system for a buy back option.

I think it's great that you can bid on your own player. It isn't unfair in any way. If the owner is not satisfied with the highest bid on his player, it's only fair that he can bid over it, and keep the player. Or, bid higher and see if people are ready to pay more for the player. The player is worth what you bid on him, so if you and the owner are the only ones still bidding, and you finally get the player, it should be positive for both managers as you only bid what you think is fair. Nobody would have cheated on you, since you decided to keep bidding.