BuzzerBeater Forums

Not to change:
- Slow pace. For me, the pace of one match per day is too fast.
- Not a pay-to-win game.
- The ban on multiple accounts. Keeping the game fair is important.
- The game engine is hard to completely studied. But I'm worried about the power of deep learning.

Good:
- Team ratings and matchup ratings for each match. It is convenient and better than only stats plus play-by-play. The latter is too "hard-core".

I don't know whether it should change or not:
- Training system. It is an important feature, but it is a double-edged sword. I'm enjoying the way how I manage my team. But if I can't find an acceptable way to manage the team, then maybe I will quit.


Last edited by little Guest at 4/6/2021 7:15:00 AM

Damn you, I was expecting our necromancer and a 10 years old thread

Hi There,

Training for me!

I have some opinion on the training system...

Can the young players (18y-19y, not include 20y-24y) train even faster in training? Because the max. ability of one category is 9 (18y: 8)

For example, a 19y rookie have 7 jump shot and 6 jump range. ( An 'A' skilled rookie)
As we know, it generally takes 2 weeks to pop once in jump shot having lv. 5 trainee.
It would need ~26 weeks (nearly 2 seasons!) to raise his jump shot to legendary(20+).
Then his other qualities could not be trained when his skills grow fastest.

It also would be a tough time to train inside shot and defense of guards.
They usually have lower qualities in these categories, and need to take a whole season to train them to an acceptable range (e.g. I. shot 3->7; I. def: 4->8)
But it means I need to sacrifice the outside skills...

I think the training speed could be faster for the young players (18y-19y, not include 20y-24y), like adjusting 18-19y players pop once in their training categories in 1-1.5 weeks ( I don't know how much the youth trainer benefits, so if you know about how much the youth trainers help the training of 18-19y players, please teach me about that).

Oi mate, I want to know ur views on what if we have a feature that enable us (the manager) to set up the strategy and override the trainer decision during the live match? Such as doing substitutions, and when to call a time-out.
It's also a proposal to the BB officials since I experienced many frustrating situation when normally in real life the coach will call a timeout and substitute some players in a particular situation, but I saw that my BB Trainer do it very late when the game is already too deep out of our control and it's too late to get back and overturn the game..

Last edited by BaraBere at 7/24/2022 2:43:49 AM

For me the core experience is to achieve a tactical advantage (1) to win games by shaping your team (2) and outsmarting your opponent.

1. This includes being able to use offensive and defensive tactics and matchups to leverage the differences in teams.
2. This includes training and buying players to strenghten your tactics.
3. This includes exploiting your opponent's weakness and preparing for their strength.

While I think 1 and 2 are getting pretty adequate attention (both by changes being implemented like the zone defenses and outside offenses as well as suggestions from the comminty), 3 is not getting any attention at all. Buzzerbeater currently has very few tools to analyse your opponent, and most users are relying on external programs like Buzzer-Manager for this. I think there's a lot of potential value that can be realized from this part.

Since the cycle of training/acquiring players to leverage different tactics is extremely long, I also think there's more to be gained here, but it might be diffecult because the slow pace and planning is also something a lot of users value. One way for me to get more out of this, is being an NT manager, so that's also an important part for me.

Sorry for writing in a thread that's been dead for almost two years, but if it's pinned up it means they still consider it interesting.

My opinion as a newbie to the game (I haven't had a full season) is that the game has many interesting and challenging things to make me stay.

Not having to pay to win.
The development of a long-term plan.
But the one that seems to attract the most is the training.

On this last issue I agree that it should not be made easier. But in my opinion it should be more real, and let me explain.

In the reality of sport, not all players can be developed to the maximum. Depending on his limitations (potential), the coaches and random circumstances, a player who could reach 100% remains at 80% or 50%, but as I see many rookie players who have less than maximum potential remain far behind. below these numbers since they practically never train.

On the one hand, I see it very well that young players have to play minutes in positions that are not their favorite to improve certain skills.
But "forcing" them to play 48 minutes in a game to optimize their training involves several negative and unrealistic things.

1) They have to exhaust themselves in a match, performing even worse than they already have due to their low development and experience.
2) They cannot play in the "coaching" position in another match because they must give way exclusively to other trainable young players. What affects the team's sporting performance.
3) In-game training depends exclusively on the matches.
My opinion as a basketball player and coach is that skill improvement occurs in training and is fixed and enhanced in games.

I have not found data on the minutes needed but from what I have read a player with:
48 Min train 100%
40 min train???
<4 min train 0%?

If I understand it correctly, the only way to optimize training is to train only 3 players per week, making each one play a full game.

I don't think the limitation of training only three, or 6 per week should be changed, but what doesn't enter my head is playing 48 minutes in a single game.

If there was a way to make the three distribute the minutes evenly, it would be great.
I put one as a starter, another as a substitute and another as a reserve in each game and that's it.
But this is not possible, I think.

Because if I do it, one can play 56 minutes, another 48 and another 40, improving the first two 100% and the third, let's say 80%. Or worse one 60 another 45 and another 39 with which only one would train 100%
This means that I have not optimized the training and we all always want to optimize resources and the scarcer they are, the more so. This means forcing 48-0-0 every week and that distances me from the reality of the sport.

The option that I have read in this thread of choosing the three/six who train that week and it doesn't matter if they play 10 or 48 or 72 minutes seems the most realistic to me.
I also understand that squaring up the minutes of play each week is considered a "mini-game" for many and that they entertain themselves with it during the time between one game and another.

I personally would prefer to play more games per week but I already know that it is the idiosyncrasy of the game and that cannot be changed. As I don't know who said: That's another story.

Having said all that, congratulations to the game developers for making it so fun.