BuzzerBeater Forums

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?

lol ok, so we could just say BBs to keep it simple.