BuzzerBeater Forums

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.

With my limited thinking ability, I come up with a few side effects or disadvantages of Plan E in (319331.191).

1. I guess a majority of teams will choose to train both inside and outside players (or skills) simultaneously most of the time, rather than training only inside or outside players (and training inside and outside skills simultaneously in a small portion of the time).

2. Training both inside and outside skills simultaneously can use the best lineup in an important match, but training only one type of skill cannot.
- If allowing one-position training to be 100% effective in both positions, it would not only conflict with the original design but also not be suitable for two-position training.
- Currently, I don't have a solution.

3. The supply and demand of players in the market may decrease.

A simple suggestion

A default team training (skills) + individual skills training (single player) would be more effective.

The number of spots for the training will affect the training speed as per current team training; with the addition of individual skills training it helps to provide specialization for game users to have options to choose areas to improve the weakness of skillsets.

A simple suggestion

A default team training (skills) + individual skills training (single player) would be more effective.

The number of spots for the training will affect the training speed as per current team training; with the addition of individual skills training it helps to provide specialization for game users to have options to choose areas to improve the weakness of skillsets.

Default team training (skills) is the same as the current training system.
Then, individual skills training (single player) is set independently for each player.

Is my understanding correct?

Additionally, I would like to ask if individual skills training (single player) can be applied to every player (similar to the effect of the Training Court), or if it is only available to players who receive default team training (skills) (similar to the effect of the Gym)?
And what about the training speed/amount of individual skills training (single player)?