BuzzerBeater Forums

Just because you fail to adapt to changes, doesn't mean you should blame the BBs. Good managers can adapt.

It seems you have no idea where you are talking about at all. The so called 'wave of FAs' aren't crushing the market, there is no deflation yet. The BBs already said several times what's gonna happen in the long run when the equilibrum is reached. They expect that the prices will be lower then. What's the point of repeating this.

Also almost all changes are announced way before in news items, if you refuse to change your strategy because of the items, then that's your choice. A good example is the announcement about the game engine changes. The BBs announce way before that several skills would be more important, like shot blocking and passing. Training scheme's didn't change much. The new game engine was released and many managers were cursing the engine. That's not because the engine was bad, it was because they failed to change their training strategy two seasons before the engine was released. They blamed someone else, while the made a mistake by theirselves.

Just because you fail to adapt to changes, doesn't mean you should blame the BBs. Good managers can adapt.

It seems you have no idea where you are talking about at all. The so called 'wave of FAs' aren't crushing the market, there is no deflation yet. The BBs already said several times what's gonna happen in the long run when the equilibrum is reached. They expect that the prices will be lower then. What's the point of repeating this.

Also almost all changes are announced way before in news items, if you refuse to change your strategy because of the items, then that's your choice. A good example is the announcement about the game engine changes. The BBs announce way before that several skills would be more important, like shot blocking and passing. Training scheme's didn't change much. The new game engine was released and many managers were cursing the engine. That's not because the engine was bad, it was because they failed to change their training strategy two seasons before the engine was released. They blamed someone else, while the made a mistake by theirselves.

You are not getting it.

An increase of FA would, very likely, start to slow down the velocity at wich prices were rising. Do you agree or not? If you agree, it follows that having all the rest the same, deflation will eventually happen in closer time and in a faster way that if the increase in FAs did not ocurr.

I do adapt to changes. In fact, I adapt my plans for the until-a-few-days-scenario. Very likely, I will do it again.

My whole point is not about me changing plans. Is about the way BBs are behaving when it comes to manage the economy, more specifically, our expectations. Because, what they are NOT doing is to tell us what they are going to do(like they do with changes in the GE); my point is, we should know if they are thinking to make any moves in the market in order to consider that in our plans. In order to choose by ourself and not simply being obligated to wake up every three weeks with a new, unexpected, economic measure that thwarts your plan.

This is a more complex issue. It also have to do with what the designers want for their game.

Last edited by Zero, the Magi. at 11/7/2009 11:42:27 AM

deflation will eventually happen in closer time and in a faster way that if the increase in FAs did not ocurr

By this you seem to think deflation is inevitable with our without FA's. If so, why? I don't see any reason that prices were set to go down.

edit - got to love this post rating system, that this post managed to offend someone and draw a 1 rating is awesome

Last edited by brian at 11/7/2009 11:59:07 AM

deflation will eventually happen in closer time and in a faster way that if the increase in FAs did not ocurr

By this you seem to think deflation is inevitable with our without FA's. If so, why? I don't see any reason that prices were set to go down.

Because the rate at wich expenses are rising is higher than the rate at wich revenues are rising. That is why BBs had to increase the arena revenues at the beggining of the season... It has to do with the dinamic between salary increase and arena revenues increase (also TV contract and merchandising).

Last edited by Zero, the Magi. at 11/7/2009 11:45:15 AM

The return of retired players to the transfer list as Free Agents was announced in the News more than one month ago. So, I don´t think this is such a surprise.

Because the rate at wich expenses are rising is higher than the rate at wich revenues are rising.

For very highly skilled players salaries are increasing much faster then most. Those are a small portion of the supply of players in BB. Though it does seem they were increasing revenue's so that the top players would end up making sense for teams in top divisions.

That is why BBs had to increase the arena revenues at the beggining of the season...

They increased the earning capacity for stadiums with a capacity up to roughly 20k, but the goal of that was to stop the overbuilding of arenas which were creating a huge gap between established teams and newer ones. Maximum revenue for arena's was supposed to stay fairly static, though it appears to have increased some since last season.

TV money was increased last season but that, along with merchandise revenue, was also driven by the need to provide a more level playing field by taking into account the level of competition in your division and country.

I guess the BB's could have said that the influx of money from a few changes was set to go up, but isn't adapting to change part of what separates good managers from weaker ones?

Everyone was aware of the return of FA's from their news post. It became obvious early on that they weren't going to cause a dramatic change in prices, but you'd have to take into account the effect it might have on prices over some time. How hard is that to keep in mind?

Last edited by brian at 11/7/2009 11:50:35 AM

I think Demian is referring to the resurrection of FA's that left the game a few seasons ago. Not the usual FA's that come every week.

The return of retired players to the transfer list as Free Agents was announced in the News more than one month ago. So, I don´t think this is such a surprise.

It was announced after the measure was taken not before. That dinamic is what I am blaming, not the measure itself.

The point now is not the announcement of something we already knew, but the not-announce of something nobody knew: "the increase in the number of retired players who are listed as FAs".

That is not trivial.

Last edited by Zero, the Magi. at 11/7/2009 11:54:15 AM

As a LA, I must read carefully the News, and I know few people read them in detail.
Maybe I am wrong but this:

As a result of this combination, many players who as recently as a few weeks ago would opt for retirement when their former team went belly-up now want to go back on the transfer market, since they and their agents get to pocket all the money. If prices continue to rise, it might even be enough to lure some player out of retirement in search of one last payday. As prices fall again, players on disbanding teams will again be able to find something better to do with their time.

I understand exactly what is happening now. Retired players (not just players from team recently disappeared) will come back to "live". Maybe a little bit late because Halloween was last weekend.
Anyway, the first Free Agent release have had very small impact in prices, and this should be a second attempt to stop this trend.

So what kind of News items are you expecting then? Please make an example of one, I'm sure the BBs could use it as feedback.

Something like?

Week 1; 5 FA released, Week 2 25 released, Week 3, 15 released, Week 4 15 released. Beware the average market price will go down from 1,5m to 1,2m. So please sell all your players right now!

Since currently the last economic news item doesn't contain any information about exact numbers, just the released of FA and the self regulation of the global income starting at the salary update of season 10-->11 offeason.

Also the BBs already announced in the same news item that the amount of released FAs would increase or decrease if needed. As you saw (if you ever looked at the TL last weeks) the prices weren't going down, actually there still was a small inflation I believe.

As a result of this combination, many players who as recently as a few weeks ago would opt for retirement when their former team went belly-up now want to go back on the transfer market, since they and their agents get to pocket all the money. If prices continue to rise, it might even be enough to lure some player out of retirement in search of one last payday. As prices fall again, players on disbanding teams will again be able to find something better to do with their time.

not-announce of something nobody knew: "the increase in the number of retired players who are listed as FAs".

How are the BB's able to predict how many teams would leave the game and how the market changes would lure more retired players back into the game, in turn, effecting how many FA's there are? There's too many variables for them to see exactly what is going to happen, same as it is for us.

I can understand that it might suck if the market turns one way or another and hurts the choices that you made. But, it's the same for everyone. I don't expect FA's to have a major effect on prices, but if I spent a huge sum on a player recently (which I did) and it turns out I should have waited a bit I'm not going to blame the BB's.

Last edited by brian at 11/7/2009 12:08:47 PM