BuzzerBeater Forums

Good point!

Yes, it´s good idea to let them play one match (why should they bought them if not to use them?).

Too in HT. If you buy a player you can´t sell him and get 100% selling fee, it´s takes time. For example player you bought 7 days ago mean that if you sell him after 7 days you get 86.38% of the selling fee. Very good rule and may be better than tax for selling beccause it´s more fair.

One important thing are here to have in mind. We are only talking about exactly the player you bought= If you buy John Smith you buy his salary same day as you bought him so you pay always one week salary no matter when in the week you buy him. Too, if you decide to sell him after one week you get 86% and then more and more of the salary fee after how much longer he stay til you keeo 97%.
But, this is only question of John Smith. You can buy or sell as many players in normal way, each of them have this personal rule.

In sokker: "I believe Sokker.org has a similar system and doesn't charge you just for listing (I may be mistaken on this though)."

Sokker charge you always, and actually heavy, each time you sell. If you put on almost 0 you don´t pay but if you want some reasonable minium floor the charge you.

In my opinion the system in HT have worked very well.

I can see how a listing tax could be punitive, but we have to agree on what behaviour we're trying to encourage and what we're trying to prevent.

That is the trick, isn't it? Just with the label of "daytrading", one could mean those who buy players worth little but with high potential and relist them at high prices, those who buy players for relative cheap prices to use for a short term and then sell for a modest profit afterward, or those who do the time zone trading where they find players selling below market value at a relative dead hour and then sell them at a reasonable price (and often benefit from bid wars) during peak hours. And then of course, for each of the various facets one then has to see how it impacts user experience for various groups of users, and how harmful or beneficial each of those scenarios is for the involved groups and for the game as a whole. Luckily, any community of this type has a very active feedback loop when any changes to the ecosystem are made, though I've seen many a game fail to handle that feedback well. ;)

In sokker: "I believe Sokker.org has a similar system and doesn't charge you just for listing (I may be mistaken on this though)."

Sokker charge you always, and actually heavy, each time you sell. If you put on almost 0 you don´t pay but if you want some reasonable minium floor the charge you.

In my opinion the system in HT have worked very well.

Just for clarification because English is, as you no doubt know, a very silly language: when you say:
"Sokker charge you always, and actually heavy, each time you sell"

Do you mean that when you offer a player for sale, you are charged, or does that only happen if the player actually receives a bid? My understanding is that you mean the fee applies simply for offering the player for sale (by putting him on a transfer list) but it could be read either way.

True, sorry for that. The fee applies simply for offering the player for sale which is not the right way in my opinion.