BuzzerBeater Forums

Very nice topic Lemon!

My priority would be to attract more people training skills, rather than just satisfying further those who already train but the number of trainees wouldn't increase much.

So, one option would be to be able to train both skills and GS.

If that can't happen, firstly i would set a very specific weekly minute range, within which a skill trained player would see his GS/DMI behave as if he was trained in GS.
It is unacceptable what is happening so far.
This way those who train but are frustrated with the current disadvantage(and give up) will happily keep on training, while at the same time, those who train GS but manage their minutes, will have a motive to start skill training.

Then, i would guarranty that when "strictly follow depth chart", "let them play" and player set as starter/backup/reserve, are all applied, then the player, no matter what, plays 48 minutes (unless he's injured of course).

I know(we all pretty much do) users who paid for a Utopia team, just so they can train three (usually home)players and couldn't do just that. Without worries about league position, promotion/demotion etc.
All they wanted was to train three youngsters and they couldn't. Others quit their team, others stuck to one trainee, others just abandoned training all together.

Lastly, in that first packet of measures, i would do something about the number of existing trainers, their salaries and of course the fact that their salary increases every week.
It's all a travesty as it stands. Simple as that.

On the 48 minutes for training thing - how about making it so a trainee now only needs 36 minutes in the required position/s, as long as they get 48 minutes in the week overall.

It's only a minor change really but would eliminate most of the issues with foul outs and nonsensical last few minute subs (which are about the most frustrating thing in BB imo). Additionally, it may mean you'd have one or two more trainees taking part in league games (at least as a sub) rather than just scrimmages. Possibly more realistic in some way?

Even better than removing it, would be to plain the field by adjusting GS training according to the trainer level.
Not lke what it is now, that you get the same results in GS whether you have a basic or a world class trainer.
Make it so what you get now from GS training to equal with a level 7 trainer and let's see how many will stick to GS regardless.
I would very much like to see users paying millions every season or two for purchasing low salary trainers(lvl 6/7), or the salary of a NT player...

To be honest, i would prefer it(the training) removed as well.
I believe there should be GS in the game, but regulated stricktly by weekly minutes.

On the 48 minutes for training thing - how about making it so a trainee now only needs 36 minutes in the required position/s, as long as they get 48 minutes in the week overall.

It's only a minor change really but would eliminate most of the issues with foul outs and nonsensical last few minute subs (which are about the most frustrating thing in BB imo). Additionally, it may mean you'd have one or two more trainees taking part in league games (at least as a sub) rather than just scrimmages. Possibly more realistic in some way?

Why not make it 24 minutes (one-half of a game per week)?

That way 1-position training could train up to 6 players and 2-position training could train up to 12 players. Combine it with an increased number of Level 5-7 trainers on the market.

Can you imagine how much better/higher skilled players would end up on the market with that? Instead of cranking out 1-2 80 TSP trainees a team could generate 3-4 or more. Multiply that over enough teams and the prices on the market will eventually reach normal levels.

The issue I see right now is that anywhere from 50-75% of the players on a team's roster get no skill training at all. that just seems like a foolish system to perpetuate.

Can you imagine how much better/higher skilled players would end up on the market with that? Instead of cranking out 1-2 80 TSP trainees a team could generate 3-4 or more. Multiply that over enough teams and the prices on the market will eventually reach normal levels.

If everyone get richer, the poor stays poor.

If the players get better, once a good player will not be as dominant as before and you will just need to buy better players for what will still be considered high prices.

I fail to see how increasing the TSP on a larger number players at once is a bad thing?

Being able to 1-position train 6 players instead of 3 will help teams be competitive sooner through training. If they then sell 1-2 of those they still have a chance to be competitive rather than start all over from scratch.

Plus the teams who buy those players they sell will get higher skilled players.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Or, perhaps separate skills training from player positions and allow each player to be trained in a different skill each week. Let me train my C in Passing and my PG in Inside Shot at the same time.

Either way the problem I see is there are far to many players taking up space with no possibility of being appropriately trained. Ridiculous

Either way the problem I see is there are far to many players taking up space with no possibility of being appropriately trained. Ridiculous

Ding ding ding!!! We have a winner.

And ANY tweaking of the current training system is nothing more than rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. BB needs a completely new training system, and nothing short of that is going to matter in the long run.

On the 48 minutes for training thing - how about making it so a trainee now only needs 36 minutes in the required position/s, as long as they get 48 minutes in the week overall.

It's only a minor change really but would eliminate most of the issues with foul outs and nonsensical last few minute subs (which are about the most frustrating thing in BB imo). Additionally, it may mean you'd have one or two more trainees taking part in league games (at least as a sub) rather than just scrimmages. Possibly more realistic in some way?

Why not make it 24 minutes (one-half of a game per week)?

That way 1-position training could train up to 6 players and 2-position training could train up to 12 players. Combine it with an increased number of Level 5-7 trainers on the market.

Can you imagine how much better/higher skilled players would end up on the market with that? Instead of cranking out 1-2 80 TSP trainees a team could generate 3-4 or more. Multiply that over enough teams and the prices on the market will eventually reach normal levels.

The issue I see right now is that anywhere from 50-75% of the players on a team's roster get no skill training at all. that just seems like a foolish system to perpetuate.

First of all, just as a personal annoyance, that would make two position training pointless. Some would argue it is now but I think the ability to pick up a group of 5 guys of star/allstar level potential and train them into effective players is a great foundational move for a team. But if you can train 5 guys at the one-position type, there's no need to even offer two position training.

But my bigger problem with this is that, while I think that there should be a change in the total amount of training offered, it shouldn't be just having more players trained with the same speed. That puts much too strong an incentive in place to train players simply as commodities to be moved to other teams, since there's still no way to be able to be able to train a mostly-homegrown team effectively.

Instead of doubling the amount of possible training by halving the maximum from 48 to 24 minutes, I think it would be much better to speed up training in general, and especially rebalancing some of the training methodologies (e.g., 1 v 1, Outside shooting, shot blocking, and Ball Handling - the training that exists but is absolutely toxic). Combining that with a drop to 36 minutes maybe (or just if you start a game at the position, you get full training for that position for that week) would probably be even better.