BuzzerBeater Forums

So who is going to train one position in this scenario?

Nobody. I meant they should replace one position training with two position or maybe allow you to train an inside and and an outside skill every week so you can train guards and bigmen at the same time.

Why not disconnect training from positions completely and allow any player on the roster to be trained at the 1-position level in any skill a manager wants each week? Train your PG in rebounding, your SG in FT, your SF in stamina, your PF in handling and your C in passing if you want.

Besides, last time I checked basketball involved 5 players on the court for each team. At a minimum the fastest level of training should allow you to train 5 players per week not just 3. No wonder there is a shortage of properly trained players.

Why not disconnect training from positions completely ...

... or better yet, disconnect training from minutes. Far too logical, it makes too much sense for them to even consider it.

So who is going to train one position in this scenario?

Nobody. I meant they should replace one position training with two position or maybe allow you to train an inside and and an outside skill every week so you can train guards and bigmen at the same time.

Why not disconnect training from positions completely and allow any player on the roster to be trained at the 1-position level in any skill a manager wants each week? Train your PG in rebounding, your SG in FT, your SF in stamina, your PF in handling and your C in passing if you want.

Besides, last time I checked basketball involved 5 players on the court for each team. At a minimum the fastest level of training should allow you to train 5 players per week not just 3. No wonder there is a shortage of properly trained players.

If this were a different type of game, that would be a great idea. If there was some sort of counterbalance, it could be a great idea as well.

The problem is, right now, you can choose to train or not, and there are some negatives to training (at least, assuming you're going for "optimal" training). The higher up you go in the league structure, the more those negatives weigh - in IV, for example, playing 48 minutes a game with a fresh draftee isn't much of an impediment because the player that would otherwise be there might have a sub-10k salary anyway. And even then, some choose to not train, and instead just run older rosters and use FT/GS/Stamina training with a cheap trainer and come out slightly ahead on the weekly balance sheet.

So if, instead, anyone would be trainable at any position each week, that just means that training will no longer be a choice or a cost-benefit decision, just a default "everyone does it" option. It will significantly slow down the erosion that causes higher level teams to eventually have to come back to the pack, and basically the richest teams will buy the best trainees and be able to custom-build the best new players while still competing full-bore with the best current players.

Now, of course, that's not to say that this current system is ideal either. Whenever this discussion comes up, I maintain that a better option would be to have a system where there is a training / gameshape / free throws / stamina balance, where the team's training is allocated on a percentage basis according to what you want to prioritize. That would pair up with the "anyone, anywhere" training so that the limitation on training isn't minutes played in a position, but how much you're willing to sacrifice performance. That means there's a real choice, with a real give and take, and that isn't as much of a commitment as the current one.

So if, instead, anyone would be trainable at any position each week, that just means that training will no longer be a choice or a cost-benefit decision, just a default "everyone does it" option. It will significantly slow down the erosion that causes higher level teams to eventually have to come back to the pack, and basically the richest teams will buy the best trainees and be able to custom-build the best new players while still competing full-bore with the best current players.

I have to say I disagree with this. Right now 25 million is essentially a hard cap. In this market, that is definitely not enough to buy the best trainees and the best players.

Also, I don't see how that new training system would benefit the richer teams more than the current system does. Right now the "richest teams" can just buy the best players and then sell them for virtually the same price (maybe even higher) when they get older and keep repeating this. Instead of focusing on training they can just buy the finished product and consistently have the best players.

I think the reason that erosion occurs is that many of these teams need to run deficits to be competitive at the highest level and so they eventually run out of money. Modifying the training system to allow users to train 5 players wouldn't really change this.

Logical depending on what your view is on training in this game.

Exactly. That's right. Good for you. It is logical, the complete antithesis of what we have now.

So if, instead, anyone would be trainable at any position each week, that just means that training will no longer be a choice or a cost-benefit decision, just a default "everyone does it" option. It will significantly slow down the erosion that causes higher level teams to eventually have to come back to the pack, and basically the richest teams will buy the best trainees and be able to custom-build the best new players while still competing full-bore with the best current players.

The main reasons teams sell the best trainees is because 1) they bring in lots of cash which is necessary to compete in the overheated transfer market and 2) because it takes years to fully train a player and they may not be competitive while doing so.

More likely what would happen if all teams from D.I down to D.IV would prioritize training under this suggestion is:

1) Most teams would spend the full $40k per week on scouting because now it's easier to train.
2) With more players being trained, more teams would spend on Level 5+ trainers to maximize training speed.
3) Teams would spend on acquiring better or retaining existing higher salary players since they could now train players without sacrificing competitiveness.
4) Team salaries would eventually be higher as teams carry a starting lineup and a trainee lineup.

All of those would take more money out of the game and, eventually, might even eliminate the need for the luxury tax. Tanking might even decrease since teams could now train players without sacrificing competitiveness.

Prices aren't problem. Problem is your financial policy. You input new taxes, that cut earnings. I remember more than 7 y ago prices was high. But players had money for shoping on TL.
Now I'm - 20k weekly. And my player salaries are below salaries border. It's stupid.

Too much revenue is one of the reason prices are so high. You say that your revenue aren't able to produce benefit, but you don't talk about your expenses, except low players salaries. What do you spend in staff and scouting ? Also, you might want to take care of your seats prices to generate more revenue.

My revenue and expense are out of controle. And I know about it. But it non sense that I must pay extra charge for low salaries, when my staff earn 3 times more than my players. Why salaries of players and staff are not counted together?

I believe you have been told the BB's view on training...

Of course, I know their feet are set in concrete about it, too, and I know about the declining participation in this game as well.

The suggestion forum is still located at the same place as it always have been and you know how to use it.

And that will make such a difference, won't it?