BuzzerBeater Forums

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.

Split training between league games and cup/scrimmage. League games work as currently do (position and minute requirements).

Cup/scrimmage training can be a different type, and more position flexibility, but still requires the same minutes.

This idea is interesting!
Even if the training for league games and cup/scrimmage games is set to the same type, this will have different influences on training only current main players and only young players.

For example, when there is no cup game and the team has only 5 main players, the situation (training main players) will be the same as in the current training system.
It will not move toward a "the strong remain strong in the short term" direction in the top league. (It can be referenced in this thread (325503.33).)

Not to mention, the situation is different when starting the main players in a cup game compared to a league game.
Please let me say it again, this idea is interesting.

Last edited by little Guest at 11/7/2024 1:15:36 AM

If we feel that players’ skill points are too high, could removing changes that increase training speed (such as youth trainers or team facilities) be an option?

And, how about lowering the potential a bit?
Has this been discussed before?
Though I guess anyone's first reaction to this would definitely be opposition.

How many players should a single user be able to train to those different division levels?

This question seems like a simple one, but when I try to answer it, I find that I don't know how to respond.
It feels like it could be very broad, or that certain conditions need to be assumed, but I'm not sure.

Something suddenly come to my mind.
When BB-Marin increased the age of degeneration by one year in season 65, does it mean he discovered some phenomenon in the statistical data that required this change?
For example, could it be that the number of players relative to the number of active players is shrinking? (I'm not asking for an answer.)

Then, even with the same training mechanism, if the overall behavior of players differs, it might lead to some variation in the results.
For example, teams that only buy main players from the transfer market and do not engage in "producing" players might have different numbers, which could also affect the ratio of player numbers to active player counts.
So, how should we determine how many players a team can train?
It feels not only complicated but also uncertain where to start.
Does anyone have a solution?