BuzzerBeater Forums

I must confess that I didnt read each and any point in the current discussion, but I come to the conclusion that you try to build up an immense rulework to cure a limited problem.

I don´t like the basic idea behind it, as you try to limit the things users can do in an extremely strict and complicated framework.

I´d like to suggest something different:

Seperate the "Buyer" and the "Seller" side of the transfers.

Read:

If you sell a player, it´s -always- selling it to the "Big Buzzerbeater Union", which pays a set price. The price is always shown on the player page and is calculated in a way taking salary, skill sum, age, potential, maybe role or achievements and intangibles into account. The prize is independent of any bidding, but cannot exceed the buying price within the first 5 weeks after purchase (slowly "gaining ground", starting at 75% of the starting price, reaching the purchase price after 5 weeks and then going by the formula), and is not payed by any one user but by the Buzzerbeater Bank. The sale happens immediately, without any delay.

Sold players are getting FAed, and enter the FA market. He will be up in the list up to three times before retiring, first time at a starting price of 10x his salary, if nobody wants him 7x, if still nobody tries to get him, final effort at 4.5x, then he´s gone. Usual 3 days of auction time, money goes to the Buzzerbeater Bank.

No connection between buyer and seller - players actively "trading" have to go for steals while buying, but cannot rip apart anyone but the Buzzerbeater Bank.

You immediately crush 90% of the cheating possibilities, active players will be rewarded for their finds, still there´s no victim.

I must confess that I didnt read each and any point in the current discussion, but I come to the conclusion that you try to build up an immense rulework to cure a limited problem.

Hummm ... how can you come to a conclusion about someone's suggestion without hearing all about it ? :°)

And because the thread and the explanations didn´t stop after 4 weeks 30 %, but continues with "maybe just 20 trades per season..." and so on.

I see Wolphs point, and I appreciate the direction, but he already starts tweaking and adding to it while already just discussing. That shows me that there is a fear that loopholes still exist if only teams happen to act in a large enough amount of moves.

I think if you follow Wolphs plan consequently, the key part is to disconnect the user and the buyer (which he suggested, in a way, by giving the seller a "clear cut" amount no matter what the buyer is paying).

Why not follow that basic idea to it´s full extent: make buying and selling independent action WITHOUT ripping apart the concept of auction in a free market?

You have a great "transparency" in the market if you do it completely, you take away money transfer moves and plenty ways of attempted cheating, you can actually "plan" what´s happening, you can calculate your training efforts in a monetary way long time before (long term strategy), and still you have the fun of running into bidding wars and stuff.

Last edited by LA-seelenjaeger at 4/30/2013 5:36:59 AM

I´d like to add a point.

I don´t like Daytraders to "flourish" on the stupidity of others ("the lucky sale" or the "overpaying of talent"), as it will happen with a decent percentage, so the more you trade (and the more players you put on the list, and the longer), the more you will get those.

I don´t like active players to be ripped off their abilities in judging players and making finds on the transfer list.

So if a talent or someone "who might be someone soon" is on the list for a ridiculous low price, why should the clever buyer who strikes, might place him in a better selling spot and probably announcing the talent in a right way while maybe giving him a week or two of training to underline his view NOT should make a solid profit out of that? Wolphs systems requires a coach to wait a long time before he can actually net the profit - that´s too harsh in my book.

@ Perpete : true.

@ seelenjaeger :
Do correct me if i get you wrong. I'll try to reword your suggestion

A seller will always sell players to the BB-Bank.
The BB-Bank sets the price.
A buyer will always buy from the BB-Bank.
The price is set in auction/bidding scheme (3 steps in starting price, decreasing from 100%-75%-45% then retiring).

The tricky part here is the price of the sell to the BB-Bank. IMO it will be very difficult to set a right price, taking into account all players criteria, and also market needs.
For instance, the major part of managers (please correct if i am wrong) need more allstar->perennial allstar potential players that are well trained and near cap-values than 18 yo HoF. How do the BB-Bank set its price in this case ?
(i imagine that every manager wants to promote or just to improve his results... tanking subject not mentionned)

You´re completely right. The key and crucial part would be to set up a formula for at least some kind of evaluation how much a player is worth.

Sounds like a Mission Impossible at first sight, but there´s TONS of data of recent moves, and once it´s done, it might not be fair from the very point it happened, but it will be in balance in a very short amount of time.

I don´t say I have a formula about this, and I´m sure we all know the current TPA is not handy for that, but I´m sure it can be done and the benefit will outweigh the momentary trouble situation when introducing the system. Could be a step-by-step introduction by the way. Keep the "sell to the bank or via auction" option for 2 seasons so people get used to it, and once they are, take away the direct sell to another player and make it bank only. Mathematical systems are able to adopt quickly using big data amounts.

I find an 18 year old guy with MVP potential on the list for 300k ... perfect size ... train him for 4-5 weeks so that people start realizing where he might end up at. I resell him for 1 - 1.2 Mios, as he might easily be worth it. Where is the part when I did something wrong that justifies me ending up with 400k only?

The only thing i'd like to point out here, is that the data might be "corrupted" by many current and past "unfair" trades (i don't say that it is the case because i'm not sure about the rates).
As i write those lines, i must admit that it seems quite a subjective issue, what is a "fair" price and what is not.

As a complement to your suggestion, i will gladly add some kind of adjustment linked to the demand/offer. For example, if there are 1000 sells (from managers to BB-Bank) at the same period for similar kind of players, the BB-Bank adjusts prices decreasing. And vice-versa if there are very few sells, the price set by the BB-Bank is at the max value.
Still, how to set up this decreasing formula ... ? Exponential ? Linear ? With a minimal cap ?

I must confess that I didnt read each and any point in the current discussion, but I come to the conclusion that you try to build up an immense rulework to cure a limited problem.

Hummm ... how can you come to a conclusion about someone's suggestion without hearing all about it ? :°)

My thoughts exactly.