BuzzerBeater Forums

I believe in competitive leagues, managers will opt for off-position training on more occassions, to catch opponents off guard with different tactics from week to week to get that little edge over your competition.
If you have a little bit older TO:s, that have big salaries, you don't need to waste their talants in games by playing them out of position. You hopefully get your wins AND some training

This feature is suitable for managers that aim high - but, without need of training (oh wait we dont have teams that train and win). If you dont train 100% you dont have to bother with training becose you wont train a player that could play a role in competitive league. This is just little help to managers that aim on title and one-two pops in season are welcome.
With current training many says you dont need to bother with training becose even if you train 10 years and create quality player his price on market will be still pretty much the same as his price was when 18yo. And now, with new system, imagine you train 10 years but your trainee is as good as if you were 5 and tell me what the player´s price gonna be?
This feature doesnt bother me at all just becose it doesnt help poor monster creators to create better players. It is just little bonus to them. Use it.

Bottom line
Training needs to be increased - pops coming more frequently
I think the change of a cross training 10% being taken away several seasons back was a bad idea
Cross training pops are a rare rare thing
I train because it's the most fun thing for me on buzzerbeater
I ould more easily have bought a team and made a run at championship
as has been stated here, top competive leagues have winners that don't train much

blank lineup, let coach decide, and train GS
Presto!

Yeah I agree! They don't train anymore. They will just buy players and train GS and win chips! I don't really know how to solve it but it really sucks. No core of players were built because season after season they are changing players.

I really like the new options, after all those who don't think its worth the slower training still have the option of 100% out of position.

There is obviously still some problems with how beneficial it is for teams to train players but the player market relies on there being a stable demand for different standard of player but the problem at the moment is there isn't much demand for average players, possibly because of the lack of new users?

Hence training is only worth it if you either training a player for your own team or are going to commit to lots of seasons with a player with good potential and a good trainer etc and even then you may not make more than 100,000 when he's fully trained.

They will never increase training. I don't see how, it would create team revenue from the market ,which is very much needed. BB know's what really needed.

I think they did ok job with training out of position, but I don't see the real purpose of it.? will it create better players? IN my opinion ,No. To me I don't see how it help create better than solo (1 position) or is faster.? its just same method of training. BB is a big mans game not a guard game. This doesn't lessen the cost of anything? Actaully it set your team back some what, because there a penalty attached. Which I'm not surprised by..

No point in doing that training with a penalty.. The easy answer is to give Sb / Jr lower cost to do increase the price of IS. And OD, ID. Not add some penalty on training.

Its no point in using the same something for the same results. It nice to have a perk ,but they didn't go about it in a popular way. All it does is help defenses get better. IN my opinion OD/Id is way to strong

I'm not sure about if Of or If is to strong. We see a lot of teams with OD and IS at 20 on players(not on the same player ofc).
But how many teams with guards that have 20 PA or SB do we see in the game?
These are things that should counter the things we see on many players, but they are very rare so I don't know if we really can say that this or that doesn't work.
I have tried a team with outside offense and bigs with high SB and have found that it works if you build for it. I bet that if someone built a team with guards that have 20 PA it will work to.

Or even slightly lower in level, if you do a search for phenomenal (18) in all of the skills (excluding stamina/FT), you will find two with 18 passing and 0 with 18 in JR or SB. The ratio of 18+ IS to 18+ ID on the TL right now is almost 3:1, same with IS:RB. The tactics don't work because nobody trains the players for the tactics because the tactics don't work because nobody trains the players for the tactics because . . .

I don't want to get off topic with if its works or not and etc. Because it been tested and BB should be telling us if it works or not. We should be not playing the role of Sherlock Holmes .That's a new debate and a lot of writing.

I agree with what your saying. . Like said before a lot managers are scared to train players a differ way for the sake of traditional training of players. What they lack to undesand and other as well( including myself) is certain tactic need the player to look a certain way for it to perform. They cant be traditional based player. How much different we don't know

Like train a.b, c. d and you have a good player. Sometimes for some tactics you will need to train D, E, f G and get something un natural but effective and good long term. This what I see them trying to do, at the same time I don't understand the penalty behind it?

It would best to just go the regular route of training ( 1 postiton) why hassle your self. Will it take longer to do this new training?, is it costly? iIs the real question. I just see people boosting Id/ od.. none of the others are deal breaker as those 2 in winning games.



Last edited by Mr. Glass at 10/29/2014 2:14:29 PM

I second someone's comment praising the BB's for working on improving the game. Good going!

This thread reveals one area of needed improvement. Veteran managers seem to have no clue what is intended by the "new training." Whatever it is, it is communicated poorly indeed. And if it turns out that "80%" refers to "80% of something in the old system," new managers who never were exposed to the old system are doomed.

The new training coding may turn out to be something useful -- I certainly hope that is so -- but the explanation of just what it consists of is going to have to be improved 300%.