BuzzerBeater Forums

I do have to say that, it seems I was wrong in one sense. The poll in global has switched from a mostly negative slant to pretty much a dead heat. People seem to actually be accepting the change and in some cases embracing it.

So while I don't like it, many people do and it looks like it is going to be the BB reality. So if you can't beat em, join em. Or quit the game, i guess.

it is difficult to predict which unrelated skills will improve on a weekly basis.

I'm sorry but this sounds like random to me. If you can't predict the skills, then there is certainly a random component. I guess how much of a random component remains to be seen.

The skills improve incrementally, and pops occur when an unrelated sublevel is high enough to pop with a 10% or less increase. Sublevels impact salary and performance, so pops aren't very impactful beyond being cosmetic indicators of progress. There's not much randomness there to me?

If everything in BB was determined with hard mathematics, then why even play the games?

The skills improve incrementally, and pops occur when an unrelated sublevel is high enough to pop with a 10% or less increase. Sublevels impact salary and performance, so pops aren't very impactful beyond being cosmetic indicators of progress. There's not much randomness there to me?

I'm trying to read this to understand what you're saying. Basically, after reading it about 10 times, this is what I think you're saying: all of the skills besides the skill that you're training get the 10%. You only see pops in the skills that have a high sub-level. So really, nothing random at all is happening.

Interesting theory. But that's all it is, a theory. And if true, then the news posting is misleading in my opinion.

But if your theory is not true, or I am misunderstanding you, and the skills that get the 10% change are chosen based on a coin flip, then I'm sorry. That's random. If you like, I can be more precise and say it is a random process or random function.

FYI: saying sub-levels have little impact (I assume that's what not very impactful means) is either false or misleading also. For sure they have an in-game impact.

1) It could be one skill, it could be multiple or all skills, we don't know yet. Either way, how is this more "random" than the old training methods, where for example in a week of 1pos ID training it was possible for players to see a greater improvement in SB? All that this does is bring other skills into the existing equation, at a slower rate of progress.

I honestly don't think it's a coin flip scenario. The news update only says: "additional training in other skills approximately corresponding to that 10% loss." There's no basis for a random solitary unrelated skill being trained every week, other than the minuscule sample of last week's pops.

2) I'm saying pops themselves don't mean much. I'm not at all attributing this complaint to you, but a lot of the panic thus far has come from managers afraid of their guard suddenly jumping 10k in salary by popping in rebounding, for example. In reality, any guard popping in REB while training an unrelated skill already had a high sublevel and will not see a great salary or performance increase. The pop is therefore mostly cosmetic.

Last edited by RiseandFire at 8/3/2011 8:53:00 PM

Agree with RiseandFire. People are getting worked up over a really small sample size - truly, a meaningless sample size. The game designers aren't (I don't think) idiots. I would be very surprised if this were anything other than a small portion of each week's training getting divied up amongst the other skills not being specifically trained that week. I thought their explanation was quite clear.

Personally, I'm indifferent to this change. I would prefer to develop well-balanced players so this doesn't change my approach to training at all.

how is this more "random" than the old training methods

The "old" methods were 100% deterministic. If you train skill x, it gives a certain increase to a skill and a smaller increase to other skills, based on age and trainer level. So nothing random at all, at least that I could see.

The "new" methods, we don't know yet, at least for the non-primary training. But if you look at the quote that I pulled from the news above, it implies that you can't predict what happens to the other 10%. Which means it is not deterministic. Which is the definition of random, statistically speaking.

As for the 10% not being a big deal, in general I agree. However, as with any random process, there is always the possibility of getting a bad sample. Which means that you could get 10 training sessions in a row where all the training goes to one or a few skills. And those will add up to something significant. It is unlikely but it is possible.

Plus... Over a career, it adds up. Certainly it adds up for the primary skill. If you trained a player for 5 years, that's 70 weeks. And 10% of that is 7 weeks. You're losing a half of a season of training. And that half of a season goes to other skills - which may or may not add to anything significant (depending how lucky/unlucky you are).

Anyhow, I think we're just debating semantics, so really not much to see here.