BuzzerBeater Forums

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.

THere is no one like Shaq or Iggy or Baron Davis that no matter how much practice or game experience they get, their FT ability never improves.

We already have that -- caps on abilities.

THere is no athletics elements, no speed, no power, no vertical, nothing like that.

So let's look at what we DO have.

I think you are grouping a lot of things into this idea of experience and expecting the BB experience stat represent all of them

No, you're making up details that aren't in BB now and aren't needed.

At the end of the day I would be okay with an ability to train or give training to players who do not play in games to some extent. Realistically however some players can not and do not ever develop, even lose skill over time. So for me having some players on teams that don't ever develop at all is realistic.

And we have that -- caps.

Working with the parameters of how the game already is, how about minute requirement for the team training, and the selected franchise players is just automatically considered as having 48 whether he played them or not and given the training (like a very determined guy, such that he can develop even if injured for example).

I am not sold on the need to introduce this new concept just to reform training.

THis might be easier to program for Marin as well, trying to select a player alone and have the game check his minutes as a seperate workflow woudl be extra coding, but just having a bypass/automatic application of training each week to a given player selected by the user would probably be easier. For the rest of the team, the team trianing element, have it just applied as the system already works with a minute check/ratio element up to 48. In this way you would have a guy training whether he plays or not, everyone playing on the team getting development/training and maybe a few guys on the bench not playing and not developing (which if we want to make it feel realistic we can just say, maybe its that they are not working hard in practice hence the coach is not using them)

I think you may be beginning to see how difficult it is to try to justify any conection between minutes played and training. It simply isn't logical or needed.

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.

Well, I hope it is something like that here, too.