BuzzerBeater Forums

You've got a point there. But that would more or less just encourage tanking (which BB is trying their best to prevent) no? Assuming the equivalent of max training right now is 60 mins general. They'd still have to play 2 games (which means sacrifice 2 official games if they're in the cup and 1 official game if they're out of the cup, instead if the 0 games for cup teams and 1 game for teams out of the cup right now).

The GS trade-off for faster training (assuming focused is faster than the max speed today) is understandable tho. I guess that's justified. But again, it still encourages tanking. Now if we combine this with the rest of your suggestion - 3 positionless trainees, 3 extra teenage slots with youth trainer... Do correct me if I'm wrong - but does that mean you can train up to 6 players in the focused group and 9 players in the general group?

So I can tank for 2 seasons, train 6 players at 133% effectiveness (it's not hard with your system, I only need to have them play 2 full games a week and I still have minutes to spare in case of injury or foul outs), then in my third season, sell off 3 serviceable U21 players who earn around 20k-30k, and continue to train my 3 other players at 133% effectiveness, potentially capping them (assuming they're HOFs) by age 23?

Even if you use focused as the benchmark (meaning general is 75% of today's training), it's still a much better option than today's training, but has tanking as a trade-off.

If you look at the bigger picture, it's not more challenging at all. All it takes is to tank, and I'm sure you don't know how willingly people tank in this game if it brings them a championship or two. It's something BB has been trying their best to prevent, so honestly this isn't exactly a good idea.

You can train 3x U21 at 100% not 133%. Plus 3x subU21 at 100%-(y. Trainer). Or 3x U21 at 100% plus 6 at 75%-(y. trainer). Yes you can train 6x players at 75% but that is not much faster than we have and you can't train 6x at 100% in 1v1 or JS so it's probably closer to today than it looks.

This plan basically combines training diversity with removed positional requirement, something that was brought up multiple times before.

Maybe I should keep it simpler like: If you have y. trainer than you can add Thursday training regime in witch only youth players can receive training. In this case players playing on Saturday and Tuesday would not get the benefit of y. trainer? Of course this way you could polish 2x 20y on Saturday and Tuesday while preparing 2x 18y in 1v1 on Thursday creating sort of production line for U21. And I just realised that in my original proposal this would be even worse...

So I'll state it again; Personally I'm against training diversity in any form because it lowers the need to interact with TM and I see that as a bad thing for the game.

As far as tanking goes I don't believe this is actually bad for the game as a whole. Being able to stay at the top like RL teams can is unhealthy.

You can train 3x U21 at 100% not 133%. Plus 3x subU21 at 100% -(y. Trainer). Or 3x U21 at 100% plus 6 at 75%-(y. trainer). Yes you can train 6x players at 75% but that is not much faster than we have and you can't train 6x at 100% in 1v1 or JS so it's probably closer to today than it looks.

Sorry but I learned in school that 3+3=6. Care to enlighten me how 3 U21 players and 3 sub-U21 players do not equate to 6 players?

Tho I think your suggestion for limiting the youth trainers effect to just Thursday seems like a better move if you want to make things more challenging. Although maybe the players trained under the youth trainer can't be subjected to the 60/80 minute requirement (since only the minutes of 1 game will be taken into account). If it's still subjected to the 60/80 minute requirement, it seems like a waste of resources to hire a youth trainer. Personally I'd rather train my 18-19 year olds in the main training slots than hire a separate youth trainer for them. The first two seasons is mostly 1 on 1 anyway, and the money I'd earn from selling them isn't worth the about I'd spend to bid on youth trainers then pay their salary for the whole 28 weeks.

That said, may I know what a TM is?

As far as tanking goes I don't believe this is actually bad for the game as a whole. Being able to stay at the top like RL teams can is unhealthy.

No tanking does not mean staying at the top all the time. They want every team to compete every season, just like how the NBA wants. They don't want teams purposely throwing games and losing games yet gain benefit from it. As someone from Europe, I'm sure you're familiar with football leagues you all have there? Are there any teams which lose on purpose so they can win the league in a few season's time? That's probably what they are looking for. Less incentives for losing on purpose.

So plan A seems popular.

I've seen a lot of suggestions shot down in the past for not being balanced. If they make something easier something else must be lost.

Under plan A which proposes being able to choose whether to train whatever you like on the three different days you can choose one of those, or two, to be 2 position training, allowing you to now easily train 4 players. You could also keep 5 for longer, meaning when you sell your worst trainees instead of going from 6 to 3 you could train 6, then 5, then 4. No, don't like that at all. The opposite of balanced.

Edit: Sorry Buzz, meant to make a general reply.

Last edited by Gully Foyle at 8/17/2023 3:59:12 AM

Oh, and another thing, please no more getting together off site to "improve" the game by listening to loud voices.

We are all equals here, though some of us are probably against the political whispering in ears more than others.

To be honest, there isn’t a “off site” gathering group.. if you want to call BB- Justin and Marin talking amongst themselves a group.. then sure go head

Last edited by Managed by a computerized player at 8/17/2023 10:58:42 AM

I hope we'll hear about training changes in the upcomming season news.

It's the discord. But then, you can't ask people to not discuss things in a discussion group right?

Managers are making it seem as if we are in the Marin and Justin’s ear. When weren’t at all, we don’t get say so like you all think at the end of the day.. there isn’t a hey “fellow discord members what do you think of this idea” game changes are discussed in the BB forums.. we know as much as you would know, if anything the discord is literally for helping managers with advice or helping another manager out. So, the whole propaganda of discord is doing this or that isn’t true at all. I respect Justin for keep that boundary with us discord members

I agree with you on that. Such stuff usually stem from just someone (doesn't have to be Justin or Alonso) mentioning an idea, and because it was brought up in discord, it stays there and people develop on it there. Like I mentioned previously, I don't see how we are going to stop people from doing that on a platform that is made for discussion. Everyone just have to accept that there are two official platforms for discussion, and that not everything will be discussed here.

That said, maybe the term [official] in the topic and having a staff representative (iirc) voicing out in favour of something might have caused some panic because instead of "I want some views on this suggestion made by a user", people actually see it as "we're thinking of implementing this, what do you think?"