BuzzerBeater Forums

In the official Discord group, EightPackKilla's response is as follows:
https://discord.com/channels/1252253812765495386/130288528...

Suggestion channel for this: but reading through it. It encourages tanking to train individuals, it gives more advantage to larger countries with more leagues compared to smaller countries with less leagues.

There’s a few different things about it that need tweaking.

You're right, these side effect may occur.

For tanking, an anti-tanking clause can be added:
If in any regular season game during that week, a starting player is significantly weaker than the designated training player—for example, if the total salary of the starting five players is lower than that of the designated training player—then the designated player will experience a decrease in training effectiveness due to a blow to their self-esteem.

Regarding the fact that countries of different sizes benefit differently, I haven't thought of a good solution for this yet.
If training effectiveness varies within the same division, there might be complaints about unfairness.


New note added
- Add another option for the relationship between training speed and division:
Div. I is Low △; the division where the "fresh team league" is located is High ◎; others are Medium ○.
It improves the situation where countries of different sizes benefit differently.

Last edited by little Guest at 11/9/2024 1:36:49 AM

In the official Discord group, EightPackKilla's response is as follows:
https://discord.com/channels/1252253812765495386/130288528...

Suggestion channel for this: but reading through it. It encourages tanking to train individuals, it gives more advantage to larger countries with more leagues compared to smaller countries with less leagues.

There’s a few different things about it that need tweaking.

You're right, these side effect may occur.

For tanking, an anti-tanking clause can be added:
If in any regular season game during that week, a starting player is significantly weaker than the designated training player—for example, if the total salary of the starting five players is lower than that of the designated training player—then the designated player will experience a decrease in training effectiveness due to a blow to their self-esteem.

Regarding the fact that countries of different sizes benefit differently, I haven't thought of a good solution for this yet.
If training effectiveness varies within the same division, there might be complaints about unfairness.

What’s to stop the algorithm for the “anti-tanking” then, if the trainee’s salary is better than all the players on the team to begin with. And no tanking is happening?

Why should managers be punished for creating good trainees and wanting to become competitive?

Because BB does not allow you to have both match competitiveness and train 2 to 3 excellent players in higher-level leagues, it would be too easy to stay in higher-level leagues that way.
You can refer to these articles (273660.21)(273660.38)(273660.39) by BB-Marin or this summary of opposing views (323722.8).

You're wrong, BB does allow training and match competitiveness, but you have to invest enough time to get your trainees to that position. You should not be punished for improving your players to a level that they're ready to compete at the top level.

I'm happy to agree to disagree, but your training 'improvement' is ludicrous and terrible.

Last edited by js8 at 11/5/2024 6:40:08 PM

For tanking, an anti-tanking clause can be added:
If in any regular season game during that week, a starting player is significantly weaker than the designated training player—for example, if the total salary of the starting five players is lower than that of the designated training player—then the designated player will experience a decrease in training effectiveness due to a blow to their self-esteem.

What’s to stop the algorithm for the “anti-tanking” then, if the trainee’s salary is better than all the players on the team to begin with. And no tanking is happening?

Let the trainee start in two regular season games, ensuring that the total salary of the five starters will definitely be higher than that of the trainee.

I noticed an issue: this approach might prevent main players from starting in both a regular season game and a cup game.
Perhaps "in any regular season game during that week" can be changed to "in all regular season games that week."
Let’s see if this causes any issues.

For tanking, an anti-tanking clause can be added:
If in any regular season game during that week, a starting player is significantly weaker than the designated training player—for example, if the total salary of the starting five players is lower than that of the designated training player—then the designated player will experience a decrease in training effectiveness due to a blow to their self-esteem.

What’s to stop the algorithm for the “anti-tanking” then, if the trainee’s salary is better than all the players on the team to begin with. And no tanking is happening?

Let the trainee start in two regular season games, ensuring that the total salary of the five starters will definitely be higher than that of the trainee.

I noticed an issue: this approach might prevent main players from starting in both a regular season game and a cup game.
Perhaps "in any regular season game during that week" can be changed to "in all regular season games that week."
Let’s see if this causes any issues.

The trainee’s salary will not ensured be lower than the other starters combined salaries. Now you are punishing smaller division teams and helping larger division teams.

Further- what determines who is the starter? The metric already in place? What if my trainees are my only starters and everyone else is a rotational player?

This whole idea has more holes, flaws, not well thought out things, and such than most ideas I have heard.

Why should managers be punished for creating good trainees and wanting to become competitive?

Because BB does not allow you to have both match competitiveness and train 2 to 3 excellent players in higher-level leagues, it would be too easy to stay in higher-level leagues that way.
You can refer to these articles (273660.21)(273660.38)(273660.39) by BB-Marin or this summary of opposing views (323722.8).

You're wrong, BB does allow training and match competitiveness, but you have to invest enough time to get your trainees to that position. You should not be punished for improving your players to a level that they're ready to compete at the top level.

I'm happy to agree to disagree, but your training 'improvement' is ludicrous and terrible.

This.

Why should managers be punished for creating good trainees and wanting to become competitive?

Because BB does not allow you to have both match competitiveness and train 2 to 3 excellent players in higher-level leagues, it would be too easy to stay in higher-level leagues that way.
You can refer to these articles (273660.21)(273660.38)(273660.39) by BB-Marin or this summary of opposing views (323722.8).

You're wrong, BB does allow training and match competitiveness, but you have to invest enough time to get your trainees to that position. You should not be punished for improving your players to a level that they're ready to compete at the top level.

Okay, what I said wasn't quite right, and it seems like I didn't answer your question.
Please let me answer again.

BB hopes to let top league teams reduce the number of outstanding players trained (to replace aging players) in order to enhance match competitiveness.
Otherwise, teams could more easily overcome the generational succession and stay in the top league.

BB also hopes to let top league teams reduce the increase in on-field strength due to training in order to enhance match competitiveness.
Otherwise, teams behind will struggle to catch up in terms of on-field strength, leading to a situation where the strong remain strong in the short term (relative to generational succession).

The situation you mentioned is probably the latter.
I hope I have answered your question.
You can also refer to these articles (273660.21)(273660.38)(273660.39) by BB-Marin or this summary of opposing views (323722.8).


The following are some details.

Excluding selling trained players, the players being trained are probably either current main players or future main players.

- First, discuss training only the current main players.
(I won't discuss the situation where the team has only 5 main players, as the conclusion would be similar.)
(Suppose there are enough main players and no issues with players being out of position.)
In the current training system, some people might be concerned that training three players with the 48+ lineup will affect on-field strength, and therefore choose to train only two main players.
In the new training system, some people might choose the new method with no penalties.
Training 3 players at 95% and 2 players at 100%.
Clearly, the increase in on-field strength due to training will be greater when training 3 players with the new method that has no penalties compared to training 2 players with 1-position training.

- Next, discuss training only the future main players.
Looking at just the starting players, the on-field strength in various situations is roughly as follows:
New method with no penalties, training 2 players > 1-position training, training 2 players ≈ New method with no penalties, training 3 players > 1-position training, training 3 players.
People who originally chose 1-position training to train 2 players, if they switch to the new method with no penalties to train 3 players, will end up training one more player than before.

I won't discuss the situation with a mix of current and future main players, as it should yield similar results.

https://imgur.com/3VsCQBn
If you look at the Box Score, the starting players will be in bold.
The BBAPI also shows whether a player is a starting player.

Now that the definition of "starter" is clear, I believe the issue you raised earlier has been resolved.