BuzzerBeater Forums

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?"

Yep, I agree with you, it’s all about how that topic is worded. From my understanding and pov of being a discord member. It’s really Alonso that talks to them, the rest of don’t communicate ideas to them. He’ll bring that idea up stemming from “I talked to such and such”. Hint the official training diversity.

In my mind, the core of Buzzerbeater is compromising every week between having your best team in league games, having your best team in cup games and training your (young) players the best you can.
Allowing people to pick a different training regimen for each game remove almost all challenge from this week and season management.
On another note, although it might look seducing to be able to train different player profiles at the same time, I think it would be really bad for the game in the mid/long run. If you train the guard that you want, the forward that you want and the center that you want at the same time, what is left for you to do after that ? People would get bored really quick.

On this subject, my opinion is very similar to Phoenix's.

I think that the current training system is one of BB's main attractions and one of the biggest insights of the game's developers.

Last edited by cataplasma at 9/22/2023 8:03:02 PM

When the developers will implement plan A?

I would prefer to add some normal training methods. Something like general - general training where all players can focus on their own needs. While growing up achieveable, but slower pace.

Im not using the forums that much so sorry for my late answer.. but I also hope this will never been implemented..
Good suggestion for sure, bacause I would like to see a more realistic way of training, its not realistic that for a decent training that top teams only train for many seasons long 2-3 players and the other part of the team doesnt get any specific training for their own positions.

But “Plan A” will for sure has the result that almost everyone will play with rosters of 5 players to give every position enough training minutes..

I'm thinking, what kind of training issues does "training diversity" aim to solve?
I've come up with two possible answers.

a. The current training system makes it too difficult to construct the team we want.
Assuming the required players are not available in the transfer market, and suppose the core positions needed are PG, PF, and C.
The training content for inside and outside players differs too much to train simultaneously.

b. Due to training positions, the best lineup cannot be used in important matches.
This is not about the position of the training position (the discount in training efficiency is responsible for that issue).
It's about the fact that the players being trained are usually not the strongest, yet they still have to play as starters.

Both Plan A and Plan B in (319331.1) can effectively improve the first issue, but it would be too overpowered.
The Plan D in (319331.115), besides being usable only for 2-position training, might be unacceptable to many people due to the discount in training efficiency.

Therefore, I think we need some kind of acceptable limitation.

The following is my new solution.

Plan E
Duo training system: 1+2+3
1. Apart from training the same type of training in different positions, the number of choices for the second type of training is limited to only two.
((Guards, Wingmen)JS or OD) x (IS ore ID),
((Guards)DR or JR) x (RB or SB),
(PA or HA) x ((Forwards)JS or (Forwards)DR).

- A player will only receive one type of training per week, prioritizing the longer training time.
If the times are the same or both reach the full training time, the first type of training will be prioritized.
- Positions for the two types of training cannot be repeated.
- The "Training" column in the training page could look like this: https://imgur.com/QGJQ3k1
- The following is the table I've organized for the two types of training.
https://imgur.com/VVXcEHN
- Weekly minute breakdown can include parentheses to indicate effective training time, as shown in the following picture.
https://imgur.com/3xgNibv
- Add a feature on the Weekly Stats page to show the time each player plays on the field in each position and in each half game, like this: https://imgur.com/HByzy7R
- The "training" column in the Manage My Team page may need to be lengthened.
- If we want to train both inside and outside players simultaneously, we will have to sacrifice one or compromise on both sides.
It's very BB style!
- If the number of choices for the second type of training is limited to only one, it feels overly restrictive.

2. Change the unit of "box" from 1 game to half.
Therefore, it will be divided into game 1 1st half, game 1 2nd half, game 2 1st half, game 2 2nd half, game 3 1st half, game 3 2nd half.
- When training two players with 1-position training, it is not necessary to play nearly 48 minutes in one match.

3. There's no requirement for each of the six half games to have a specific type of training.
A total of up to six half games for the two types of training combined is acceptable.
- There's flexibility to concentrate training on specific two games to increase flexibility in match scheduling.
It improve the second issue.


If you want to increase the number of players in training, you can consider the following plan.

3'. A total of up to eight half games for the two types of training combined is acceptable.
- This is the version for training four players.

Last edited by little Guest at 4/15/2024 6:14:02 AM

I saw a statement:

The "quantity of effective strategies" available to a player reflects the depth of the game.
If the number of choices a player can make increases, but the "quantity of effective strategies" does not increase or even decreases, the game will not become more interesting.

I'm currently unable to judge how the "quantity of effective strategies" will change for different plans, but I feel this is a factor that needs to be considered.