BuzzerBeater Forums

Did you see my -2%. -2% is lower than 0%...so I will get nothing. Do nothing can be profitable? I don't think so

Sure, if you amass a large enough pile of nothings that it spontaneously evolves into something.

(Or, possibly, you might end up getting enough of a penalty to underflow the tax rate and end up getting 32767%)

I just think there is a difference between trading and daytrading. If you make 10 - 20%, that's a good appreciation of value. If you make 100% or more consistently, then there may be something wrong. Tax the profits on a sliding scale if you want, even to -2 or -7% but not the principal. If I buy for 200k and sell 2 weeks later for 200k, I don't see why that should be penalized to the level of $100k

Well, let's agree that it's good to stop excessive profiteering. On the rest of it, I think having a penalty is fine but it is too harsh and limits flexibility. However, everyone has to live by the same rules.

While I really like the new training system, I can't say I think the increased transfer taxes are a good idea. Presumably, part of the reason these rules were implemented was to help protect newer manager from being taken advantage of. However, I don't see how it does that. Sure it will discourage day trading, but it definitely won't make players more affordable and probably puts newer players at more risk. Most players on the transfer list are overpriced; with higher taxes, we can expect these prices to rise even more. As well, any remaining day traders will start overcharging by even more. Don't get me wrong, I think the player market on BB is great. There are many well priced players out there free agents always make it possible to find good players for reasonable prices, but these new tax system could make it harder for new players especially to find bargains.

What I propose the BBs should do is implement a price cap. Any players above a certain age (say 25) and below a certain salary (ie 20k) cannot be listed above a certain amount. As well, the price cap could apply to any 18 or 19 year olds whose potential and TSP fall below a certain value.

Another thing the BB's could do is make the starting price on all player $1000. To prevent hurting managers in different timezones, they could have an option to autolist the player at certain time, so all manager can put bids out during peak times. Also, this would ensure people are paying fair prices for their players. It might mean players won't make as much money off transfers, but this works both ways as it also means players would be cheaper to acquire.

Could tell me somebody the relationship between the buying datum and the overall transfer in the last 14 weeks. I just checked and one of my trainees have 51% tax rate. But before somebody ask - no i dont want to sell him, it is just a simple question.

I like the changes, from the numbers I've seen so far, they seem fair. Although, I'm a fan of giving advanced notice, and still a strong proponent of implementing the auto-bid system. I wouldn't normally come on just to say that, but it seems like there's a bit of backlash to this change, while I think it is a really good step in the right direction.

What I propose the BBs should do is implement a price cap. Any players above a certain age (say 25) and below a certain salary (ie 20k) cannot be listed above a certain amount. As well, the price cap could apply to any 18 or 19 year olds whose potential and TSP fall below a certain value.

Another thing the BB's could do is make the starting price on all player $1000. To prevent hurting managers in different timezones, they could have an option to autolist the player at certain time, so all manager can put bids out during peak times. Also, this would ensure people are paying fair prices for their players. It might mean players won't make as much money off transfers, but this works both ways as it also means players would be cheaper to acquire.

I'm more in favor of a hybrid of those, where players who you've just purchased can only be listed at 1k for the first few weeks, and then it'll ramp up to the price you bought them later, and eventually it'll become fully unlocked. I don't have a time period because every time I start to type this out I think a different slope of the ramp up would be best. I just think that the problem is the actual *listing* price - if someone buys someone for 1k who is legitimately worth a lot more, they should be able to list them at 1k and get the fair price back. But putting out ridiculous starting bids until somebody bites is not an exercise of skill in evaluating the market, just in buying a cheap player and having patience to profit from the folly of poor decision making of other managers.

I'd go for that, or even for listing at say 50% of the acquisition price. If you buy at 500k, you can choose to list at any price up to 250k.