Both plan A and plan B are very attractive for me, but they have at least two problems.
1. It's too easy to train 2~3 players "perfectly" at the same time.
As a team manager, it is more challenging to train 2~3 players "perfectly" simultaneously than to train a single player "perfectly".
The achievement motivation theory suggests that when players reach a state of perfection, they may experience a lack of challenge and achievement, which can potentially lead to a decline in their interest in the game.
Therefore, for those who aim to train multiple players "perfectly" at the same time rather than just an individual player to perfection, if it is too easy, then their interest will decline more quickly.
2. Having the ability to train different kinds of players (for example, inside and outside players) at the same time provide some advantage over only being able to train players of the same kind.
It can provide the team with greater diversity and flexibility.
Generally, a balanced team tends to be stronger than an unbalanced team.
Therefore, we can expect that training different kinds of players simultaneously will become the mainstream, similar to the look inside tactic in the past.
There is a theory that suggests when strategic diversity decreases, players may feel that the game becomes monotonous and lacks variation, leading to a decline in their interest in the game.
Hence, if we can train different kinds of players simultaneously, then it does not necessarily guarantee an increase in training strategy diversity; instead, it may lead to a decline of interest in the game.
I have briefly tried another fast-paced basketball management game where training was not restricted by playing positions but rather by playing time. Each player could have different training settings, but there were additional fixed parameters for each player that influenced the training speed of different skills.
For me, the training of this (another fast-paced) game was a bit monotonous and lacking depth. Perhaps games with different pacing have their own suitable game design.
To avoid these problems, here are my solutions.
Plan C: Add an option to select random or specific skill for cross-training and gym.
- When selecting specific skill options, the total amount should be significantly lower than the total amount of random option.
- We can use a table similar to the skills table in tactics page and add an additional column for drop-down menus. The default value is random.
- It can slightly improve players and make them more perfect. The issue of problem 1 is minor.
- The effect of cross-training is minor. It doesn't have the issue of problem 2.
- The cross-training was introduced in S17 and was designed to penalize particularly one-dimensional players. It would not violate the original design purpose.
Plan D: Add the option "X and Y" to two-position training.
- The position of X and Y training should be different.
- Each player is limited to one training only. How to count the minutes can be discussed.
- The training speed is, for example, 90% of two-position training's speed.
- We can add a "X and Y" option in the first drop-down menu, and add two additional drop-down menu to choose X and Y training.
- It is similar to one-position training. It doesn't have the issue of problem 1.
- The speed is, for example, 90% of original's speed. It doesn't have the issue of problem 2.
- Two-position training may train at most 6 players. It may affect the supply and demand of players in the market.
- It is the solution with the most BB training style.
- Whether we should increase the speed of two-position training is another issue.
Last edited by little Guest at 5/29/2023 12:15:20 PM