BuzzerBeater Forums

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)?

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; the addition of individual skills training 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?

YES

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)?

Individual skills training can select all training methods available now unless a new set of training methods being added.

And what about the training speed/amount of individual skills training (single player)?

Training speed follows current setups.

Of course, it would be ideal if it was able to open to all 5 slots per game following the game minutes; OR
at least 3players for team trainings & open up 2 slots for individual trainings


In addition, just have some ideas on the player by adding in some speciality for the players; this speciality is like a born talent towards the player which they have a slight advantage at certain areas of play;

Such as below: (I saw it somewhere on Reddit)

The Slasher: These are the people who can drive and are masters of finishing
Examples: Elgin Baylor, Ja Morant, Derrick Rose, John Wall

The 3p Shooter: The guy that can knock down shots and usually can create space
Examples: Steph Curry, Bradley Beal, Ray Allen, Reggie Miller, JJ Reddick

The Scorer: The people that can score in a variety of ways
Examples: Kobe Bryant, Zach Lavine, Michael Jordan, Vince Carter

The Playmaker: The type that can set up their teammates with passes (great passer and improve the flow of the game)
Examples: John Stockton, Chris Paul, Steve Nash, Oscar Robertson, Jason Kidd

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.

I find the opposite to be true. It is very easy to train whatever kind of player you want subject to a few limitations that seem reasonable to me. What I oppose are the lineups used to maximize training. They have kind of taken over the game. I am experimenting now on my Utopia team with allowing a player to play 48 minutes a game to obtain max experience, but I do not now and never found that approach to be realistic. It's gaming the game IMHO. There is a game shape penalty for doing such things. I will find out first hand how bad it is. At a certain point--how long can a player maintain 48 minutes a game w/o giving way to complete exhaustion--the penalty needs to be so severe that playing 4 on five is more effective. As a result of using a player to exhaustion, there should be a training penalty, such that an exhausted player gets no training benefit after three or four matches of consecutive 48 minute performances, and the penalty should probably be no training benefit for the equivalent amount of time the player was abused, plus two weeks recovery--no games played. So, with 4 consecutive games of 48 minutes, a player couldn't play another game for 4 weeks. Scrimmages included.

That brings me to the issue of shorthanded lineups. They shouldn't be permitted. Teams should be forced to suit 12 players for each game. Failure to suit enough players and/or have five players on the court at all times would result in a loss of training benefit for all players for 10 weeks and forfeiture of that season's draft picks. Imagine the Lakers showing up and putting three players on the court. What city would support that franchise? It should not be happening in BuzzerBeater.

The training mechanism is fine. The limits are fine. The problem is that we are now playing a basketball training game with matches to support the training, instead of basketball management game, where the emphasis needs to be on the games played each week.

Since

I wouldn't say it's gaming the game at all; it's really a necessary by-product of the training system. So, you can't have it both ways - either the training mechanism and its limits are fine (which results in precisely this 48 minutes scenario), or there is a problem that this is a basketball training game with matches to support the training.

As the game evolves, you have to add limitations to keep the balance. Using a player for 48 minutes in every contest for two years, starting in his rookie season, is absurd to someone like me who prefers a little more "rigid realism" in the game. I've been around since Season 7. Paid for every season. In my view, the training for the U21 and NT teams is out of balance and has skewed game play, the cost of players, and the general economy in ways that need corrected. I tried it myself for the first time this season and hated it. I'm not trying to infringe on anyone's fun--I know it's popular (just look at all of the professional tankers around and how that impacts the draft)--just looking for a little more balance. And I can have my cake and eat it too, if I want

Regards.

If yes, that's definitely not how you train a player, regardless of whether he's a rookie. That guy's (or guys'?) GS will be trash because of the excess of playing time, but you don't need 48 minutes per game for full training, only per one week.

GS is trashed. I believe--and this is my first go at this--the idea is to ratchet up the experience as much as possible. You basically prioritize the training of this player over the success of the team, doing just enough to avoid a fan boycott.

Last edited by LDR at 7/7/2024 6:02:48 AM