BuzzerBeater Forums

Add some minor adjustments to training:
1. JS and JR training adds to FT skill. It makes sense. Good shooters make good free throw shooters.
2. Players that are well managed with consistent minutes should get a boost to stamina. If you have an ideal minute management on athletes, their fitness levels will peak and stamina is high. This forever dropping skill until it is trained kills the die hard trainers that care about losing one week here and there to NT prospects. Reward good minute management.

Only minor, but will improve players slightly, balancing out training benefits a little more whilst not going overkill. If you speed up training now, it'll create some super beasts in the future that we have never seen before. Guys with 160+ TSP.

Last edited by whitewind at 3/16/2016 8:07:11 AM

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.

I'll disagree also but I think you have some good points and I admit I hadn't considered the hard cap recently since it's a new addition. But still, if you have these teams buying older players and then selling them a few seasons on for profit, they're still going to have enough money to throw at players they want to train.

But you're looking (it appears) at only the super high end trainees and trainers - which is always going to be an overpriced market. Where I think the problem with "free" training comes in is not that the top teams will swoop in to buy up all (both?) the All Time Greats each draft - that'd be a wasteful investment that wouldn't really fit in. What I expect would instead happen is that the Superstar/MVP range of players would be picked up, trained on the bench to be SFs primarily and cost effective big men or guards secondarily, and then they'll need to replace even fewer players due to attrition.

I'm not entirely opposed to that - I think it would be nice to have the option to actually be able to draft and develop a team at a pace that leaves a few seasons for FT/stamina training as well. I just know that there's always concern about upward mobility for newer teams and anything that makes it easier for teams to park themselves in the top division is likely to be highly unpopular.

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.

I can safely predict that the odds of teams investing 40k/week in scouting the draft as a result of this proposal is approximately zero. The draft is a whole different beast and certainly something that could also use some sprucing up, but as it stands there's no reason to invest much money into it.

I also don't think that tanking is generally done specifically because people want to be able to train. At some point in the erosion process, a team reaches a point where continued progress isn't sustainable and then it makes sense to do a refresh of the team's roster. I hit that a few seasons back, and so I guess for a couple of seasons I was technically a dirty tanker myself. Most of the time, the tanking option is taken for people who don't feel like they can compete at a higher level without a financial advantage, which is an opinion that often is self fulfilling.

Hi

What is happened? Why loss this match?

(89470088)

He played with more effort at home. Beyond that there are probably more reasons but those two are big ones that can cause big changes in the score.

a: wrong topic ;) you want this one: http://www.buzzerbeater.com/community/forum/read.aspx?thread=251520&m=278

b: it seems he can defend on the inside and you cant score on the outside...playing patient = you didnt really have a place to get good shots (and he's a better rebounding team than you) so fewer possessions + more misses + less off rebs gained plus the reasons given above = loss.

I agree with many of you guys but the main reason that led to prices going out of control is that there are too many teams which are "tanking" for years (not seasons) and have 10-15-20M. They are not very active but when they log in and see a good player, they can bid 5-10M for him and in many cases become bots shortly after. Yes, lack of players on market is one problem but thousands of teams with such budgets is the main reason.

When I read the announcement of the Hoarding Tax I was pretty excited about it but I expected it to be on lesser amount of money (i. e. 10M) which would lead to very high prices in the next couple of season until everyone spends his/her money in order not to lose it and that would be the decision.

BBs might not want to mess up with the economy but nowadays prices are the reason hundreds of manager stop playing the game. If the BBs want that to continue then their current position is OK. You can't enforce someone to play the game the way you want (train players). It takes years to train a good player/s and many people just don't want to do that but 3 years ago yu were able to buy an average player for 500K and now you can't find such player for less than 1-1.5M...

One very simple question, how many managers there were in BB 3 years ago and how many are they now?