BuzzerBeater Forums

I just wanted to let you know that there are folks out there who like the current training system.

I don't like it. I think the current system is way too easy. I can easily train 3 guys at PG every single week and challenge for the title every season in Utopia. On top of routinely progressing very deep in the cup (I made a semifinal and a quarterfinal).

This is my proposal to all the people who like the current easy system: make it so that 100% training is only awarded to players who play 36+ at one position and 36+ at another position. Then we will see who is a good enough manager who is able to both manage GS and train. As an added bonus the change will remove the possibility to achieve 48+ for 3 trainees which, in the BBs' own words, was never intended to be.

If they set very different positional requirements even better (like 36+ PG and 36+ C for Pressure, maybe 36+ PG and 36+ PF for Passing etc) it's not like they are completely straightforward in the current system anyway.

Let's go the hardcore route, it's actually more convenient for me! It's gonna be me, you and a few others still playing the game and I'm pretty confident I can succeed under those circumstances.

Last edited by Lemonshine at 7/8/2015 5:21:50 AM

Look, almost none of the people writing in this thread has a problem training with the current system.

You all make the mistake of thinking that if someone makes a suggestion or voice a concern, it is because they are not able to succeed with the current system. Out of 30 games this season I successfully single position trained 48+ in 23 (soon to be 24) and double position trained the other 6 games. All this while competing and reaching the last 16 in the Utopia cup knocking out D1 and D2 teams on the way (I'm D3). Do I think it's not possible or too difficult for myself? Certainly not.

The question here is not about our little backyard and what suit each of us. The question is what is good for the game as a whole, which is something certain selfish naysayers keep brutally disregarding in the conversation.

So the question to you is: "do you think a change like the one proposed would make it easier for less experienced/skilled managers to play this game?". And if you answer that you don't care about this, I would also like to ask you this: "would you have more fun playing an even harder game with 2000 teams spread all over the world in groups of 20-30 or would you have more fun playing a slightly easier game with 50k teams?"

Last edited by Lemonshine at 7/8/2015 7:42:07 AM

Have you ever tried training six players? The risk isn't low, despite using strictly follow depth chart and let them play the game engine will often prevent you from gaining 48+ on all six players

Did it this season and probably most of the time last season.

Losing a few minutes every now and then does not bother me at all. I'm ballin'

next season I might do single pos. Training with Centers playing PG. This will suck big time.

Last edited by Knecht at 7/8/2015 8:10:58 AM

What's the secret? It wasn't 'every now and then' for me, it was every week.

Decent stamina, low foul count and don't field much better players alongside them.

This kind of game simply needs some long-term challenges

Sounds to me that from your perspective if training was even more complicated and challenging, the appeal of the game would be even greater...

Ok other question is it better to have managers stay for 2 years and then leave when they have no more challenges left in the game or a manager stay for 2 weeks maybe a month? Again you're not looking at the bigger picture. A turnover in the userbase is to be expected, it happens to every community like this. To me the longer the average, the better.

And if I lose that 10% of the current userbase that think that the game is interesting only because it's difficult and you need to invest years in order to achieve something in order to bring in tens of thousand of new managers and have them stick around for a year, then so be it.

Last edited by Lemonshine at 7/8/2015 9:05:49 AM