BuzzerBeater Forums

Can you imagine how much better/higher skilled players would end up on the market with that? Instead of cranking out 1-2 80 TSP trainees a team could generate 3-4 or more. Multiply that over enough teams and the prices on the market will eventually reach normal levels.

If everyone get richer, the poor stays poor.

If the players get better, once a good player will not be as dominant as before and you will just need to buy better players for what will still be considered high prices.

I fail to see how increasing the TSP on a larger number players at once is a bad thing?

Being able to 1-position train 6 players instead of 3 will help teams be competitive sooner through training. If they then sell 1-2 of those they still have a chance to be competitive rather than start all over from scratch.

Plus the teams who buy those players they sell will get higher skilled players.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Or, perhaps separate skills training from player positions and allow each player to be trained in a different skill each week. Let me train my C in Passing and my PG in Inside Shot at the same time.

Either way the problem I see is there are far to many players taking up space with no possibility of being appropriately trained. Ridiculous

Either way the problem I see is there are far to many players taking up space with no possibility of being appropriately trained. Ridiculous

Ding ding ding!!! We have a winner.

And ANY tweaking of the current training system is nothing more than rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. BB needs a completely new training system, and nothing short of that is going to matter in the long run.

On the 48 minutes for training thing - how about making it so a trainee now only needs 36 minutes in the required position/s, as long as they get 48 minutes in the week overall.

It's only a minor change really but would eliminate most of the issues with foul outs and nonsensical last few minute subs (which are about the most frustrating thing in BB imo). Additionally, it may mean you'd have one or two more trainees taking part in league games (at least as a sub) rather than just scrimmages. Possibly more realistic in some way?

Why not make it 24 minutes (one-half of a game per week)?

That way 1-position training could train up to 6 players and 2-position training could train up to 12 players. Combine it with an increased number of Level 5-7 trainers on the market.

Can you imagine how much better/higher skilled players would end up on the market with that? Instead of cranking out 1-2 80 TSP trainees a team could generate 3-4 or more. Multiply that over enough teams and the prices on the market will eventually reach normal levels.

The issue I see right now is that anywhere from 50-75% of the players on a team's roster get no skill training at all. that just seems like a foolish system to perpetuate.

First of all, just as a personal annoyance, that would make two position training pointless. Some would argue it is now but I think the ability to pick up a group of 5 guys of star/allstar level potential and train them into effective players is a great foundational move for a team. But if you can train 5 guys at the one-position type, there's no need to even offer two position training.

But my bigger problem with this is that, while I think that there should be a change in the total amount of training offered, it shouldn't be just having more players trained with the same speed. That puts much too strong an incentive in place to train players simply as commodities to be moved to other teams, since there's still no way to be able to be able to train a mostly-homegrown team effectively.

Instead of doubling the amount of possible training by halving the maximum from 48 to 24 minutes, I think it would be much better to speed up training in general, and especially rebalancing some of the training methodologies (e.g., 1 v 1, Outside shooting, shot blocking, and Ball Handling - the training that exists but is absolutely toxic). Combining that with a drop to 36 minutes maybe (or just if you start a game at the position, you get full training for that position for that week) would probably be even better.

...incentive in place to train players simply as commodities to be moved to other teams...

Welcome to the club, although there's nothing new there. I've been pointing that out for quite some time now.

...incentive in place to train players simply as commodities to be moved to other teams...

Welcome to the club, although there's nothing new there. I've been pointing that out for quite some time now.

I haven't joined your club. I have said that the specific proposal would be a step in that direction, which would be bad. The current training setup doesn't allow training enough players to make them commodities as much; as it is, you can't train a homegrown team since once you train the guards, and then the big men, the guards are going to start losing skills. Adding twice as many players but still having it take 6-7 seasons to train the guards and then 6-7 to train the big men would just be rearranging the seating chart at your pity party.

...incentive in place to train players simply as commodities to be moved to other teams...

Welcome to the club, although there's nothing new there. I've been pointing that out for quite some time now.

I haven't joined your club. I have said that the specific proposal would be a step in that direction, which would be bad. The current training setup doesn't allow training enough players to make them commodities as much; as it is, you can't train a homegrown team since once you train the guards, and then the big men, the guards are going to start losing skills. Adding twice as many players but still having it take 6-7 seasons to train the guards and then 6-7 to train the big men would just be rearranging the seating chart at your pity party.

See that bolded part? We agree again! Welcome to the club.

And nobody said that the commodity training and sale system that we have now works well as a commodity trading system, either ... so again we agree. You do a good job of pointing out how incomplete it is if the goal is to develop enough commodity to stock an entire team, and I agree! Let's face it, the more we analyze it the more we agree, although I understand that it is politically incorrect around here to agree with Mike Franks, even when we are both right.

...incentive in place to train players simply as commodities to be moved to other teams...

Welcome to the club, although there's nothing new there. I've been pointing that out for quite some time now.

I haven't joined your club. I have said that the specific proposal would be a step in that direction, which would be bad. The current training setup doesn't allow training enough players to make them commodities as much; as it is, you can't train a homegrown team since once you train the guards, and then the big men, the guards are going to start losing skills. Adding twice as many players but still having it take 6-7 seasons to train the guards and then 6-7 to train the big men would just be rearranging the seating chart at your pity party.

A couple things:

1) 6-7 seasons to build a player is certainly reasonable in a management sim like this. I play in an American Football sim where it takes upwards of 7-8 seasons for players to reach full builds.

2) The problem with taking 6-7 seasons here is that only trains you a fraction of your overall roster at max training speed. This discourages owners from sticking around. In the Football sim example above I can train an entire roster of 50-60 players at max training speed. After 7-8 seasons an owner can have an entire starting lineup at full builds and be training the next generation of players.

3) I simply don't understand the benefit of having a player's training tied to the position they play instead of letting owners set a player's training individually. Let's use a 12-man roster for example. Right now you could train 3 or 6 or 9 players in one skill (let's say Passing) each week. Disconnect training from which position a player is used at and allow each player to be assigned to train at a different skill each week and in one week you could train:

Passing - 3 players
Rebounding - 3 players
Jump Shot - 3 players
Free Throws - 3 players

Then keep or rotate as needed over the rest of the season.

4) Players are considered commodities now exactly because you can only train so few at maximum effectiveness. Allow each player to be set to train a different skill each week and now teams will not only have an incentive to build around a team of player but all teams can train players and become competitive quicker.

5) As teams can build more players better and more effectively themselves, the market for expensive fully built players will dry up (or at least get somewhat cheaper). That said, a side effect of this might be that 18 and 19 year old players may get more expensive. However, those two might balance each other out.

6) With all that in place, the only thing an owner needs to worry about is getting a player 48 (or 36 or some other number) minutes each week regardless of which position it is in. No more using players out of position and sacrificing/tanking a game or season to train 1-2 players (which solves another perceived problem as well).

Last edited by lvess at 2/21/2016 9:40:45 PM

I remember your overhaul proposal for the training system and I think it might be a good starting point if they decide to go down that route.

I opened this thread because I think the prices currently are unsustainable, because it will take a lot of seasons before the situation stabilises through players coming through via training and therefore I think it's fair that after they took away cash with higher floors and luxury tax they give us something more on training.

I'm a bit short of time now to quote and edit your post. I think the ideas of training different players in different skills each week is great for a single player type management game (like FM for example). I think that in an online game with users coming and going, though, the problem is that if everyone can train optimally and compete optimally every week, as most "full team" training proposals would have, this would simply make it easier for teams at higher levels who generally choose to sacrifice training because of the competition at the top.

I think there needs to be a clear and meaningful choice to be made in terms of training and competitiveness - the current method of making them play in a position for 48 minutes is one way of doing that. I'm not convinced it's the best - I'd rather see sliders where you can put a percentage of training time into stamina, a percentage into FT, a percentage into GS and a percentage into skill improvement, and then just training the players who start in the training position so minute maximization is no longer required.