BuzzerBeater Forums

Phyr, this is a very well thought out and well written proposal. (I'm responding to the original post)
With regards to not needing 48+ minutes, it seems that many folks strive so hard to get their 3 players at 48+ on single position training, or their six players in double position training, and anything less is deemed unacceptable. What it has always seemed to me is that getting all your trained players the max training in a week should be somewhat of a challenge and a rarity. Not just a press of a button. Over the seasons, this has turned out to be a fun challenge for me, and several of the other managers I know in real life. Taking my Utopia team as an example, I know that I won't get the best out of my guys if I try to play them 48+ each game, and it also won't be best for my team from a winning perspective. My answer to this is to train 5 guys in 2 position training. That way there is more flexibility, and my best players (the players I'm training have grown to be my best) can play bigger roles in league games.

I would be okay with the drop off in training efficiency from 48+ minutes being linear instead of on a curve. Actually, I would welcome that change.

Regarding #2, I've actually just thought of out of position training as one of those things that makes you really question whether it's worth it to try and train up your big man's passing, for instance. It's been the question of: do I play him as a guard in a league game (and risk TO's) and have him defend the post? Or do I just play him once as a reserve, and then get him his 48+ in a scrimmage? Not easy, but again, a fun challenge over the past 15 or so seasons.
I actually thought the change so we can train anyone anywhere, but with a penalty, was generous.

However, I would not be opposed to seeing training penalties lifted for all positions, but I would prefer that it stays the way it is now in terms of choosing only one skill to train per week, and players needing to be in the same position to receive that training (or 2 positions for 2 player training, of course). I think that would be another very generous shift towards making training easier.

All in all, though, I've enjoyed the current training system. I've always been training at least one player on my team every season, and my team has done moderately well over the years, so the current system can definitely be incorporated with team success as well.


Last edited by Iguanadon Joe at 10/15/2015 1:33:47 PM

I wanted to clarify that I know many other managers have achieved success via training in the current system. I wasn't trying to set myself on a pedestal there.

As a concept in a MMO manager game, not having training as an element is probably the stupidest idea ever.

True. I don't know why you would even say such a thing.

That said the issue is HOW training works and how it interacts with other elements of the game. Its impact on the competition etc.

Well, in Buzzerbeater the issue is more how illogical training is, and how badly is screws up the rest of the game, e.g. the need to play guys out of position.

FAs themself were the poison.

Now I suspect you may be delusional.

But some are forced to take steps down in order to rebuild their team. Thus leaving room for new teams to go for gold.

If you look at the top divisions around the world you'll probably find that most teams sit there from the beginning - this game is really tough when it comes to vertical mobility between the leagues.

If stepping down to rebuild means to play for 3rd to 5th spot in a league something fundamental is wrong - but thats a whole different issue we are touching there.

What would be so bad about playing a guy in his "natural" position and giving him training too? Suddenly all the teams would play to their full potential, so who is the victim there? I can abuse the system as I play a league full of bots, where it really doesn't matter if my 0 passing C runs the show for weeks - thats a bit unfair to those who are stuck in competitive leagues, don't you think?

You just have to measure how much you feel it's worth losing in training over the risk of losing a game.

And you don't see that as illogical? There is certainly no RL counterpart to that.

As a reflection of real training ofc it is illogical. But there's also the part where you need to look at game design and adding balance to the game's different aspects. Competition vs training.

Yes, exactly, "Competition vs training" is what this game has come to. But what if it were competition against other teams that becomes the central conflict? Like real life athletic competition, eh? There is nothing necessary to game design about the artificial conflict of training vs competition. Only HT and its spawn, BB, use that strange system as far as I know. (There may be a few others). But most athletic sims do no such thing. Most have competition vs opponents as the central theme, just like real life.

This doesnt seem like something you'd support as you dont seem to be for the rich getting richer way. And thats sure what this would lead to.

Au contraire. It would lead to every team being able to train and compete. Competition against 20,000 other teams instead of competition against the few at the top would not be the rich getting richer, would it? It would be 20,000 teams all with a shot at the top. I support that. I honestly think a lot of guys at the top understand that, and that understanding underlies their opposition to changing training.

This doesnt seem like something you'd support as you dont seem to be for the rich getting richer way. And thats sure what this would lead to.

Au contraire. It would lead to every team being able to train and compete. Competition against 20,000 other teams instead of competition against the few at the top would not be the rich getting richer, would it? It would be 20,000 teams all with a shot at the top. I support that. I honestly think a lot of guys at the top understand that, and that understanding underlies their opposition to changing training.

Thought exercise:

Currently, what levels can you be competitive in and still train optimally? I'd say in V it's laughably easy, quite simple in a IV, somewhat challenging in a III, nearly impossible in a II and suicidal in I (and I've got experience actually doing that in all of those but I, and know enough about the NBBA from competing with those guys late in the Cup and in private leagues).

Your hypothetical lets *everyone* do that.

How much does a guy in V gain in your system? Nothing - except maybe instead of beating a bot by 50, they beat them by 75. Or not. How much does a guy in I gain? A massive benefit - because instead of having to replace entire starting lineups over time, they can use no-effort training to create three ideal players and then replace fewer players, thus removing some of the erosive effects that competition at the top levels causes.

Taking away literally the only advantage lower level teams have over higher level teams is pretty much a textbook definition of 'the rich getting richer'. It'd be different if it were reversed, and training was laughably easy in I and painful in IV - then, naturally, leveling the field would eliminate an inherent advantage of being at the top. But as always, I am impressed with how closely your knowledge about training matches up with your love for how it's implemented.