BuzzerBeater Forums

I think from another thread floating around there is nothing other than ingame injuries for NT players...

Which remains incorrect, and this was addressed in the other thread as well. There is extra experience. The experience increase might be small, but so is the extra chance of injury.

I agree with ardain. I love the idea of the BBB but it does seem to have created a huge disparity between the haves and have-nots ( or at least the crude oil like rise in transfer fees seems to have coincided almost directly with the 3rd round onwards of the tourney). Likewise I find it very disappointing that one has to play the transfer market in order to stay competitive. Basketball never has been about the transfer of players, which soccer and this game's inspiration, HatTrick, have been for as long as most of us have been alive. As a huge hoops fan it's less appealing that one cannot compete simply by training one's own players and being tactically astute. C'est la life.

Ive responded to your comments on the Transfer list thread.

Its clear that many of the top teams are known within the BB community now and I cant help feeling that you are always trying to defend the wrong road you have chosen (and stated often) of building your whole team nice and rounded.

I lobbied very early on to be able to train any combination of positions with any skill.. it was quickly rebutted that this is not how BB's want to build the game.

With that in mind do you honestly expect everyone to accept this or divide into 2 camps. 1 side training/selling PF/C and the other side training/selling guards... some (and i think this is where the real money is) have opted to train SF's....

So dont be disappointed - the riches and rewards are there for everyone. Accept it and change your training regime.

You dont have to play the market if you dont wish to - the new rules have severely limited this as an option. But dont criticise those that train optimally in order for the best financial return.

You have to understand the potential future rewards for teams and the difference between 1st & 2nd.

Take our teams.. we are both in Asian countries with low user bases... so your strategy works and will do until such time where 1 of the other users makes decisions that generates more revenue than you do on a consistent basis.

The team in question today is chasing KDB, Chicago Bulls & Auerbachs... so what choice does he have? If he wins the league and qualifies for BB3 its not just the money he can then go onto make - its the money he wouldve also been behind that the other teams can now no longer go onto make... now taking it one step further if this extra money and lets say 4-5 weeks worth of extra training brings his team up to a level where he is now the favourite for the following season has it then not been worth it?

In BB you only have 5 starters so unlike football.

To bridge any gap is in effect easier.. its not like we all need 10x10mil players....

It is each to their own and if my guy sells with 1 hour to go before the deadline to a team hoping to challenge for a promotion/title then this will show he is worth it at this given moment... if he doesnt then no problem at all.

Based on your comments on the transfer thread I assume you have reported the transfer for being overvalued??

Firstly, I didn't criticize anyone. I want you to reread what I wrote and see if I criticized anyone.

Secondly, while I am moved that you can't help feeling about me ( however it might be ) I am not trying to defend the wrong road that I went down. How could I defend being wrong? I am simply stating and will continue to state that I think it detracts from the basketball feel of the game to have it be imperative to buy and sell players (even though this is hinted at all too clearly in the rules)in order to be competitive. Essentially it is an economy game based on buying and selling commodities, with basketball as a framework. That wasn't why I was drawn to the game in the first place, so if I choose to be disappointed I can be disappointed, thank you very much.

Thanks for the tip, but I changed my strategy about a month ago.

Of course not. I don't think it is my place to do such a thing, and it is obvious that there are people willing to pay exorbitant fees. A-Rod got 123 million.

If that guy is worth 10.5 million, this game has gotten waaaaaaaay out of hand.

I took this as a slight on my attempt to sell especially as it was located in the transfer ad thread which to my knowledge hasnt been used to have a dig at player valuations.

We all have seen some ridiculous attempts to sell off players - but then again who is to say what is exorbitant or not..

If you would only pay $5mil for someone that somebody else pays $10mil for then wouldnt that mean that you might need to re-consider your valuations? I would imagine your feelings towards players changing hands for such high prices is based more on the idyllic BB world you (and everyone for that matter) would like this to be.

As it stands the game is still in its infancy and will be for some time to come. Whether it be now or in 5 seasons the market price is and will always be the market price simple as that.

Good luck with your new training strategy!

Some interesting reading for everyone while they cool down (not that this is getting too heated, really): (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winner%27s_curse)

I 'm sorry that you took it personally. I meant no dig at you whatsoever.

You are correct regarding my valuation paradigm.

I think that a price which only one third of one percent of the total population of prospective buyers can afford is the definition of exorbitant. Like I said before, ARod got 123 million.

It's not exorbitant if it's a good investment.

At the price the Rangers once paid for A-Rod, it probably wasn't a good investment, since they weren't in a state where what they paid for him would increase their income enough via tickets, TV, and especially playoff appearances.

For the Yankees, it's a different story. They're looking at different multipliers for the value of a win. The difference between having A-Rod at third base versus some scrub might be the difference between making the playoffs and not.

I think the same thing is in play here. An NBBA playoff team derives much more value from an elite player than 99.9% of the rest of BB. Possibly enough value that the transfer price was a good investment.

I would argue that the Yankees got ARod not to get to the playoffs, but to win World Serieseses (which they have yet to do with him at the hot corner thank god), and that exorbitant has less to do with individual valuation and more to do with collective valuation, but that is semantics more than anything, no?

The crux is that I am changing my stance on the ridiculosity of the 10 million dollar man and his brethren who undoubtedly are but a short way down the road.
You both make good points and I appreciate your insights. Also, I have two guards who are about four weeks away from being in the same skill range as Sharman's guy, soooo...