BuzzerBeater Forums

I think the arguments about 2 identical players where 1 gets the reduction is just nonsense. It happens always and everywhere that 2 identical players have a different influence at the economy.

When you put 2 players with all the same stats (so even the same %FG, wage etc)on the transferlist they will not sell for the same price. Maybe 1 will be sold for 150k more than the other, it just depends on the moment, if there is a bidwar or not or whatever. The team who sold it for 150k less isn't compensated as well. That's just the economy.

This is all very interesting but it has nothing to do with the argument at hand. What I am saying is that if two managers have a player with the same skill, but one is friends with the manager of the NT (or better yet IS the maneger of the NT) of those players, one will be payed a certain salary by one manager, and the other will be payed much less by the other manager.

This is all very interesting but it has nothing to do with the argument at hand. What I am saying is that if two managers have a player with the same skill, but one is friends with the manager of the NT (or better yet IS the maneger of the NT) of those players, one will be payed a certain salary by one manager, and the other will be payed much less by the other manager.

I guess I don't really get your point, if there are 2 identical players and you only want to select one, the other one will always be 'discriminated', friends or not.

There are dozens of possible scenarios where things like this can happen, although the frequency is very low.
Lets say when injuries can happen in NT matches and the NT coach needs to play the playoff final against another team with only homegrown players. He can select all those players for the NT, and let them play. So that some of them might be injuried at the playoff final. That's another crazy idea right?

These scenarios are all rare, they won't happen much. So not adding new features, because one of these crazy scenarios might happen once, is crazy if you ask me.

Last edited by BB-Patrick at 4/12/2008 9:41:51 AM

This is all very interesting but it has nothing to do with the argument at hand. What I am saying is that if two managers have a player with the same skill, but one is friends with the manager of the NT (or better yet IS the maneger of the NT) of those players, one will be payed a certain salary by one manager, and the other will be payed much less by the other manager.

I guess I don't really get your point, if there are 2 identical players and you only want to select one, the other one will always be 'discriminated', friends or not.

There are dozens of possible scenarios where things like this can happen, although the frequency is very low.
Lets say when injuries can happen in NT matches and the NT coach needs to play the playoff final against another team with only homegrown players. He can select all those players for the NT, and let them play. So that some of them might be injuried at the playoff final. That's another crazy idea right?

These scenarios are all rare, they won't happen much. So not adding new features, because one of these crazy scenarios might happen once, is crazy if you ask me.

Exactly. My example doesn't necessarily have to include unsportsmanlike conduct. It can just happen that one player gets called and another similar one doesn't. the maneger of the one that does get called will have an enormous advantage over the other maneger. The better the player the higher the advantage.

But this happens with everything. Right now if you have 2 identical players and 1 is in the NT, the one in the NT will be sold for a higher price than the other because he got 'the flag'.

When there are NT's you will see 'problems' like this.

But being sold at a higher price, first of all, is not a certainty (and if it is, how higher he is sold is variable), secondly, it only happens when the player is sold, meaning it's a one-time advantage for each manager.
The reward for an eventual injury is a fixed weekly bonus that the manager would have for two, three, or maybe even more seasons. Let's say a manager has two NT players with a combined salary of 80K. If he gets even a 33% bonus, that's 26K a week. That's more than 350K a year. Imagine if the players are called in the NT for 3 or 4 straight seasons. We're talking about a 1-1,5 million dollar bonus for potentially absolutely nothing. And even if the player does get injured with the NT for a couple of weeks, that's still WAY too much money.

But this happens with everything. Right now if you have 2 identical players and 1 is in the NT, the one in the NT will be sold for a higher price than the other because he got 'the flag'.

So a manager with a NT player has already a benefit, plus has a salary reduction 'cause he's part of the NT staff (just a supposition ^^)... not fair at all for a conference rival.

Until the almost-bot-farms will be set up (two seasons at the latest), when one "friend" squad train only one position at week to raise NT players, the wages are sustainable... because if they aren't, we'll see a lot of NT stars in the market ;).

I agree with Spicymchaggis on the reduction topic. I don't think that salary reduction is a good solution at all simply because it helps to increase the gap between the top and the rest of the teams. When you save a lot on salary costs, you naturally become richer and can purchase, more expensive, NT players more easily. This leads again to lower salary costs and so on..

So, like patjebono, I too ask myself: What's wrong with the arcade mode? Of course managers who have NT players on their roster would like to see some reward for training such players (but then you only reward the 1 position training managers). On the other hand managers who do not have these players will want arcade mode (but will change opinion if they do have these players). So who is right? As the incentives for having NT players increase I think that the game itself will suffer from it. Simply because or you reward 1 position training managers or the ones who have the money to buy NT players. In the end reaching the top thus will become (slightly?) more difficult for other managers (because of the cost disadvantage) but also it can only increase the resentful feelings to national teams and their managers. So really what is wrong with arcade?;)

Second, NT manager is an elected position. If the manager decides to use a strategy which weakens the team and profits some of his friends, well, the users in that country should have known better when they were voting.

I don't think this is a solid argument. As it showed in real life (prisoner's dillema) even best friends can betray each other in exchange for personal benefits. Everbody has got a price:P Plus if a manager wants to do this I don't think he will mention it upfront nor will one of his friends.

The system has been implemented in other similar games and it works.

Better check out the hattrick community where those friendclubs rule the world;)

I do agree on your first point: one player is always screwed but friends do can change selection criteria.