BuzzerBeater Forums

People will never intentionally devote time to trianing lower potentials enmass. I just don't think it will happen. NOR will they train 3 or more positions consistently. People will always tend towards training 1 position/as fast as possible. Profitable or not. Good for the global health of game/market or not. People will also cheat to do this if it is the best option, as currently is the game design.

Completely agree. I think the appeal has to come in a different flavour.

TOO hard for most people not to just end up really ruining prospects and wasting hundreds of thousands at a time

People are even admitting as much

The players in existence do not have the skills to earn what we are capable of paying them, thus we have surplus and inflation. This creates messed up cycles of inflation and deflation where peoples training patterns can radically alter the market.

This is true as well. We've always focused on the movement in user numbers, taxes, reduction of FA to explain inflation, but the salary reduction that started a long time ago and is still going on is another obvious reason.


This whole opening post should be quoted in full, all the time, everywhere.

I think you can't just get a free for all system (or some variant of it). So complexity must be retained.

I agree that players develop through playing time in the NBA and even in Europe. They set the threshold at 48/week but whatever the number I agree with Trainerman that there is correlation between burn and development. I'm fine to retain that aspect of the system to some extent as long as we get more flexibility.

To be fair I'm on board with any proposal to add flexibility to the current system and hopefully that's still considered. I still train my guys out of position (and my main trainee is 24 and the best player on the team), but if I could somehow, even under equally strict conditions train a guy in pressure and another in outside shooting I would be already a lot happier and I think it would be easier to understand and accept as a system by many new managers.

Last edited by Lemonshine at 6/22/2015 4:56:25 AM

I agree that players develop through playing time in the NBA and even in Europe. They set the threshold at 48/week but whatever the number I agree with Trainerman that there is correlation between burn and development. I'm fine to retain that aspect of the system to some extent as long as we get more flexibility.

My point is that we already have that in logical form -- Experience. There is no need to retain it in illogical form, such as requiring out-of-position playing, or completely failing to train players who get minimal or no minutes.

It's not clear what experience does in the game though. And experience is hardly quantifiable in the real world too.

I think they got it right in the game: more experience seems to mean fewer boneheaded decisions by at player in crunch time, but I don't think it means a higher average level of play.

Last edited by Lemonshine at 6/22/2015 10:31:13 AM

It's not clear what experience does in the game though.

Then there's a real problem to address.

I don't think it means a higher average level of play.

Not in BB it doesn't, and there is another real problem to address.

There are plenty of things to address without retaining the illogical crap.

Oh well if experience did have an effect that could be a way to work it out. In Hattrick experience is quite important and it does improve the level of play.

I think you can't just get a free for all system (or some variant of it). So complexity must be retained.

I agree that players develop through playing time in the NBA and even in Europe. They set the threshold at 48/week but whatever the number I agree with Trainerman that there is correlation between burn and development. I'm fine to retain that aspect of the system to some extent as long as we get more flexibility.

To be fair I'm on board with any proposal to add flexibility to the current system and hopefully that's still considered. I still train my guys out of position (and my main trainee is 24 and the best player on the team), but if I could somehow, even under equally strict conditions train a guy in pressure and another in outside shooting I would be already a lot happier and I think it would be easier to understand and accept as a system by many new managers.

Just a quick idea, since we're in suggestions, and I'm not going to bother to put too much thought into it because I doubt any of it is likely.

New training: Each week you have 144 (3x48) minutes to spread out among any of your players. Each player can be given a specific training type to focus on, regardless of position played. However, they can only be given a number of minutes equal to the total of league minutes plus cup minutes plus half of scrimmage minutes, with the max of 48.

Each team will set the percentage of their training for:
Stamina (5% min / 25% max) -- for all players
FT (5% min / 25% max) -- for all players
Game Shape (5 % min / 75% max) -- for all players, though the minutes they play is still the base component
Skills Training (5% min / 75% max) -- based on minutes/regimens selected

I think the percentages are way off but as I said, not going to put much more thought into something that I doubt will ever happen. But this way you retain the minute-based requirement for training, make playing guys in competitive games mean more than throwaway games, eliminate any position-based problem to it, and still have to make meaningful choices to balance training and game day performance, plus eliminate the 0.00 FT percentage shooters without having to have crosstraining implemented.