BuzzerBeater Forums

BB Global (English) > Inflation

Inflation

Set priority
Show messages by
This Post:
00
268316.72 in reply to 268316.71
Date: 3/23/2015 8:57:16 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
14901490
Yes, but you do not need to have sold 15 players, as clearly stated by hrudey, to be affected by the increase in tax, do you? The change affects anyone independently by the number of players sold, but exponentially more those who have sold more players. It reduces the benefit of listing players for everyone (or forces longer holding periods compared to before). However way you look at it, it reduces the willingness of people to list players. This was my point.

Last edited by Lemonshine at 3/23/2015 9:07:25 PM

This Post:
33
268316.76 in reply to 268316.72
Date: 3/24/2015 12:19:20 AM
Edson Rush
II.3
Overall Posts Rated:
262262
Wow! You guys should write a book.

This Post:
00
268316.77 in reply to 268316.69
Date: 3/24/2015 3:30:52 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
370370
A. Low prices don't affect lower and mid-level teams adversely ...
... and here's why they don't:
... the lower level teams are competing with each other.
See? We agree on something.

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 ...
That is just so wrong it's scary. The reason that a wildly high cost of players OR inflation is better for UPPER level teams is that they CAN replace one set of aging veterans with another, slightly less aging set. A lower level team cannot even afford to replace more than one or two players that way -- tops.

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.
See? For a lower level team we'd be talking about replacing a player for 10 or even more home games revenue if they are lucky -- measured in home games revenue, the upper level team is at least five times better off.

Sometimes if you just read what you write instead of being so defensive you could see this.

Last edited by Mike Franks at 3/24/2015 4:06:53 AM

This Post:
00
268316.78 in reply to 268316.47
Date: 3/24/2015 3:37:06 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
370370
I'd rather the game move toward rewarding teams for creating players...
Obviously you're getting your wish. BB-Marin feels the same way, and the game has become a training game rather than a basketball mgmt game. Even the whole economy is adjusted to reward training at the expense of any other winning strategy.

As managers find this to be true they have to decide:
A. stay in this training game,
B. find a basketball game, or
C. neither, it's time to read a book.

This Post:
00
268316.80 in reply to 268316.74
Date: 3/24/2015 6:13:18 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
14901490
we arent just losing player due to inflation, i stated it before. we are losing players because we are taking out the fun factor in playing this game. the thing is this is a management simulation game so what is the thing the utmost matter is to see yourself having this just as your own. whether to see trainee improving at a pace you like and contribute, to see your team win ball games but because the game evolve itself to what it is now its getting complicated every step because the needed change to make it balance but hurts more the new or lower teams than those in division 1 teams.
Very good point

This Post:
11
268316.81 in reply to 268316.78
Date: 3/24/2015 9:31:37 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
32293229
I'd rather the game move toward rewarding teams for creating players...
Obviously you're getting your wish. BB-Marin feels the same way, and the game has become a training game rather than a basketball mgmt game. Even the whole economy is adjusted to reward training at the expense of any other winning strategy.

As managers find this to be true they have to decide:
A. stay in this training game,
B. find a basketball game, or
C. neither, it's time to read a book.


If there is one advantage in the game that lower level teams have, it is the ability to be able to train players without as much of a negative effect on their game results. This has always been the case, and this will presumably always be the case. Whether training for pure profit, training to create one set of players to keep and a set to sell for replacements at other positions, or training everyone to keep, it's the sole advantage to being lower in level. If you don't want to do that, of course, that's your right - but then of course those who do will continue to improve and move up, while those who don't will flounder.

Give it a year or so, though. I'm sure that the current high prices will start people actually training again, and soon enough there will be supply for a demand that will likely decrease, and then there'll be a whole new market of talent to deplete.

Advertisement