BuzzerBeater Forums

respectfully, i disagree, you cant say something makes the game easy so you cant take it out, its supposed to be a basket ball game, i could make up an arbtrary rule that makes things hard again, how about all center have to take 5 three pointers a game, that would make the game harder but no one will want it because it makes no sense, you can add things to make the game harder like more hiddens and more tactics and changed salary system so you could make specific players (compared to all of these all around centers everyone builds), team captain and/or added team chemistry, then it will be hard again, plus that way you have to work like actual basket ball coaches/managers not this weird system that is made for the only reason of making this game harder, a game shouldnt be hard just to be hard, there should be a reason its hard, imagine every player new to your team reduces your team chemistry or you can hide the potential of a player, all of that makes the player need to think about his strategy and makes sense but a coach only being able to teach one skill a week makes no sense

Last edited by Grave Skull at 5/9/2014 9:49:11 PM

respectfully, i disagree, you cant say something makes the game easy so you cant take it out, its supposed to be a basket ball game, i could make up an arbtrary rule that makes things hard again, how about all center have to take 5 three pointers a game, that would make the game harder but no one will want it because it makes no sense, you can add things to make the game harder like more hiddens and more tactics and changed salary system so you could make specific players (compared to all of these all around centers everyone builds), team captain and/or added team chemistry, then it will be hard again, plus that way you have to work like actual basket ball coaches/managers not this weird system that is made for the only reason of making this game harder, a game shouldnt be hard just to be hard, there should be a reason its hard, imagine every player new to your team reduces your team chemistry or you can hide the potential of a player, all of that makes the player need to think about his strategy and makes sense but a coach only being able to teach one skill a week makes no sense

It's not so much that it's hard or easy, it's that the training is the way it is so that you have to make meaningful choices. If everybody could train every player each week, while it'd be a more realistic simulation, there's no more choice involved - you train everyone, you don't have to sacrifice anything to do so. As it stands now, you have to balance training vs. competitiveness, which makes for a better game, albeit not a better pure simulation.

i understand but the same can be accomplished if you just pick players that the coach focuses on, for instance you can say coach has a choice to focus on 3 players at 100% training efficiency, or 6 players at 75% efficiency, or 9 players at 60% efficiency, and those will be the only players you can train that week, in my opinion if you did that you would have the choice, and while the game would be too easy at this point (because the coach can focus on different skills for each player) you could then make one realistic change like taking a way of players ability to see potential until the player has been maxed (imagine drafting someone you thought would be a MVP and then after you max him he turns out to be a starter), then the game will be back to normal difficulty, you will have choices and it would make more sense as a basketball game, which i believe will make the overall experience better

Last edited by Grave Skull at 5/10/2014 11:01:15 AM

I definitely prefer the current system. While yours may be more "realistic" (personally, I think that is debatable), it clearly removes one of the most important strategic elements of this game, which is having to make trade-off decisions between the competitiveness of the lineup and training needs. Nothing you have suggested does anything but make both parts of the game (training and competing) easier, and then the additional suggestions you've made to attempt to add back in "difficulty" still completely separate these two aspects of the game.

could you got in to more detail as why its less realistic, and why training and competing are seperated by the removal of potenital, i guess i dont understand what you mean?


keep in mind that i dont like the training system because to me it doesnt make sense, not because of difficulty level, i also disagree that something that increases or decreases difficulty should be there for the sole purpose of increasing or decreasing difficulty, it has to make sense to be put in there, a owner/coach not knowing ben wallace had a superstar/perinealallstar potential when they traded him as a filler to detroit for grant hill makes sense, they didnt spend time to train his defense and didnt know his potential, btw im just giving an example of a change that will make sense and increase difficulty because making the game harder shouldnt be the sole purpose that a particular part of game exists

I really don't understand the questions you are asking me, as that don't appear to be related to the statements I made, but I can try to respond to your general comments.

No matter how the training is set-up, it will not be realistic. That's simply recognizing that this is a simulation. Whether one approach or another is more "realistic" is largely a subjective evaluation of each user with regard to what they consider to both be realistic and important. While I fully agree that the current training system in BuzzerBeater is not "realistic", I don't find what you have described to actually be very "realistic" either. But a debate about the subjective nature of "realism" is pointless, although that largely appears to be what is behind your suggestion.

Your proposal makes both training and game planning easier simply because it disassociates them from each other. Doesn't really matter what other options you try to add back on on either side to increase the difficulty of each one independently because you have still completely removed one of the biggest strategic elements from the game by separating training from the games. Having training linked both to the minutes a player plays in a game and the positions they play at is one of the most important strategic elements to this game, since to really train a player well, a person has to play him out of his best positions at times, which will reduce the strength of his team on the court. For example, making those decisions around which games to train a center at point guard to increase is passing or outside defense is one of the key elements of the game. Your proposal removes that and replaces it with a number of proposals which I think involve little strategic thought or planning. Therefore, in my opinion, they lessen the game. Whether or not they are "realistic" is very much a tertiary consideration.

that is what i was asking, i understand you point of view now, it seems you like this system probably for the exact same reason i dont, i dont like to train only one skill, and while training out of position doesnt bother me much now because i new so my team isnt good anyways, i can tell it will be something i will not like later either, every time i do it i will feel like its pointless. that said i think i understand now why you like, correct me if im wrong but you like it because adds a strategy that is constantly forcing the owner to choose between either playing for the now or training for the future.

i think we just have to agree to disagree, that said i do thank you for taking the time to explain your view to me, i didnt understand it till now, +1 for you