BuzzerBeater Forums

I have played online sport simulation games where those responsible for the game had teams at the lower and middle levels as well as the top levels. It was no secret. Some people complained about competing against people with intimate knowledge of how the game worked, but I was not one of them. I think it is a great idea. I think it would be a great idea for this game. It would be an astonishing eye-opener for the movers and shakers of BB, something seriously needed.

I wasn't going to post in the thread again, but I've got one more post for each of you and then I think I'm done.

First off, it was pretty well known in the USA community at some point that BB-Charles did in fact operate more than one team in the USA (one in particular he was using to test shotblocking, IIRC). It wasn't advertised, in contrast to the other sim you may mention, but it has happened previously and it would probably be a safe assumption that it continues to happen with the current development staff.

In terms of training being easier at lower levels, the simplest proof is your very argument about the woes of inflation. If you take it as a given you need better players to compete as you move up, then it naturally follows that the amount your competitiveness is impaired by replacing a starter with a trainee also grows. Look at a competitive NBBA game and try to figure out how to replace one of the starters with an 18 year old (or, heck, a 20 year old) and still have a reasonable shot of winning. Then do the same for an average IV series, and it's much less of an impediment.

But of course, if someone's plan is to ride a bunch of 30-somethings out of V, then ride a bunch of 30-somethings out of IV, and so on, it's no wonder that inflation makes it harder. But on the bright side, in any economic environment, that strategy has generally failed in the absence of a remarkable amount of daytrading, so if somebody wants to blame it on inflation or whatever else, I suppose that's easier than trying to figure out how to keep up with the next set of new teams who will be improving instead of deteriorating.

hrudey,

dont make me call you a wuss.

just stay and sya your opinions. all we have here are opinions, and truly some of what you say i agree.

Not a wuss. Well, not about this at least. It's just that at some point it's pretty much all been said and it's not actually fun to continue to have the same argument in a lot of different words. If something actually interesting or just grossly inaccurate comes up, of course, that may change things. I think my opinions are pretty well known on this at this point, and I think Lemon and Mike Franks' opinions are well known, and we may all be right about some of this at the same time.

One thing I will say about the rest of your post, that I neglected to include in the quote, is the whole "when division 1 teams need players they have the money" argument. At least for me, I've never had a million dollars in my bank account for much more than a week, if that. I've never sold a player for anywhere near that or bought one for much near that. At least in competitive high level play, when teams aren't tanking at least, it is hard to run a significant weekly profit and remain in the league, let alone threaten promotion. When tanking is more common, it's somewhat easier then since you can get 5th place with less effort, but hopefully the days of widespread tanking as a favored strategy are not returning anytime soon.

The last thing is that I wouldn't want to stay in my old IV league because I was doing well, necessarily. If I had been unable to promote out of there because I just wasn't good enough (which has become perilously close to being the case for me in II.4), I would have accepted that. I've been fortunate (or not, depending on the point of view) to be in highly competitive leagues for their level all the way up since I got out of my almost exclusively bot V series. My aim is always to start off with a clear vision for how I want to play the game, and then see how competitive I can be and how far I can go doing so. In Hattrick, I wanted to see how far I could push specific tactics at first, and then at some point I was mostly concerned to see how ridiculous I could make my match ratings in a "sustainable" economic manner. If I never had set foot in III but had challenging competition the whole time, felt like I had a fair chance of building a team that I wanted to build and had a playing field that was equal with the people I was competing with, that's pretty much good enough.

It's ludicrous that people, like hrudey, are defending the choice of creating inflation to make training more appealing.

...

There are so many options available that choosing to support inflation as the solution for making training profitable is mind boggling.

I would find it ludicrous if that were, you know, actually what was being said.

What is happening here is that there is some inflation currently, and a small component of that is related to a decision that was made because of rampant unchecked deflation in the economy. Deflation that pushed player prices to extremely low levels compared to other sources of revenues, and so the idea that the best way to play the game was accumulate money prevailed. That prices are increasing now of course has had great damage on teams who relied exclusively on cheap veteran players to "improve" their clubs, especially as a whole new set of teams has been created from scratch in the past year with a corresponding surge in demand for players at a given level.

So of course, I would agree that hopefully this inflation might encourage people to do more training - or more accurately, hopefully prevent them from deciding to engage in the tank and collect money then buy overpriced roster and burn money cycle. But I don't think inflation is something that is an active "choice" to do that - that's simply the market's reaction to a major increase in demand, compounded by people reacting to the lack of value in lower level players by creating them much less frequently.

In the end, though, if you want players of a certain type on the market, you have to encourage them to be created. Remember how rare high SB or guards with high JR were? The salary and potential calculations were modified so those weren't as "expensive", plus the effectiveness of SB was boosted, to encourage that. I'd love to see something done to encourage more training of balanced players, especially with potential levels that teams won't touch today. But I don't think that this is what inflation is - it's just the correction of prices for players who were clearly underpriced, and I'm simply not sure yet that they're objectively overpriced yet. Higher than they used to be? Sure. I don't know what BB's goal is in terms of ideal player cost vs. fixed revenues, though.

There are so many options available that choosing to support inflation as the solution for making training profitable is mind boggling.



Yes, This is what i have been saying the whole time and this is why they wanted tax exemption.. It pretty much go hand and hand. the inflation for profits. reward those who train.. the reward is inflation of profits.

This is why the BB market is dead,. selecting few and neglecting another is all that going on BB. for the sake of $$$ for training on over inflated player most of them being LI/Lp players because they easer to create..

I find real humorous they to do gentle touches to li. but I spent so much money on a outside shooting team it was ok to do so.and had to rip it down because of tax exempt rule. Forcing people to training, when BB training painfully slow is not the answer and say look here some $$$ for over inflated player who is capped. then turn aroun and punish the flipper when they created a flippers market. LOL

Last edited by Mr. Glass at 3/25/2015 11:34:27 AM

If you want to reward training, inflation is probably not the best solution ...

There are hundreds of ways to make training more appealing, including [making it LOGICAL]

There are so many options available that choosing to support inflation as the solution for making training profitable is mind boggling.

If I may condense your post this way, I totally agree.

First off, it was pretty well known in the USA community at some point that BB-Charles did in fact operate more than one team in the USA (one in particular he was using to test shotblocking, IIRC). It wasn't advertised, in contrast to the other sim you may mention, but it has happened previously and it would probably be a safe assumption that it continues to happen with the current development staff.

Obviously it happens at the top levels of teams. Hopefully it happens at all levels -- that would be great news, but unfortunately there seems to be little evidence of that.

if someone's plan is to ride a bunch of 30-somethings out of V, then ride a bunch of 30-somethings out of IV

If someone else has to make up something like that, or doesn't understand what another team is doing, it weakens their argument and their credibility.
Edited to say that someone might look at my team, for example, and think that's similar to what I was trying to do ... and they would be wrong. But that's irrelevant to the thread.

It's ludicrous that people, like hrudey, are defending the choice of creating inflation to make training more appealing.
There are so many options available that choosing to support inflation as the solution for making training profitable is mind boggling.

I would find it ludicrous if that were, you know, actually what was being said.

To be fair, it wasn't you who said this first, it was BB-Marin. But you seem on board with it:

I would agree that hopefully this inflation might encourage people to do more training ...

It does far, far more than "encourage" training; it requires it, makes it a necessity. And until training is made logical that means managers are being forced into an illogical system. Obviously a lot of managers have become accustomed to that, and that is fine for them. But for others being forced into an illogical system is a deal breaker. There are too many sports management sims that require no such thing.

Last edited by Mike Franks at 3/25/2015 1:50:54 PM

it would probably be a safe assumption that it continues to happen with the current development staff

Should we expect some 'outing' by you or Perpete in the near future? :D

if someone's plan is to ride a bunch of 30-somethings out of V, then ride a bunch of 30-somethings out of IV

If someone else has to make up something like that, or doesn't understand what another team is doing, it weakens their argument and their credibility.

(69080052) - season 26, league V championship game 3. Anyone 34 or older now was 30 or older then.
(75679504) - season 28, league IV championship game 3. Anyone 32 or older now was 30 or older then.

I'll leave it as an exercise to anyone who cares to check to see which of your players got the most minutes and figure out their age at the time and then decide how much of that is made up.

It does far, far more than "encourage" training; it requires it, makes it a necessity.

Does the bold text imply that you've been granted authority to change the definition of those words? I don't remember getting the message to start banning teams for violating the "required training" rule but, to be fair, I kind of suck as a GM.

Who are these "development staff" and what do they do then? Are they people who are supposed to test changes before they are implemented, experiment with features in the game?