BuzzerBeater Forums

Help - English > 40 min full training for 27+ yo

40 min full training for 27+ yo

Set priority
Show messages by
This Post:
11
315694.38 in reply to 315694.21
Date: 8/8/2022 10:46:44 AM
Siegen Crew
II.3
Overall Posts Rated:
8181
I wish we had 48 minutes for all. Then there wouldn't be any confusion. If only it had been that way all along!


+1

From: JuMax

To: bari
This Post:
00
315694.39 in reply to 315694.38
Date: 8/8/2022 10:57:06 AM
Sallenôves GOATS
II.2
Overall Posts Rated:
694694
Second Team:
Sallenôves GOATS II
40 for all players could be a good solution too especially to train players who have foul problems

From: bari

This Post:
00
315694.40 in reply to 315694.39
Date: 8/8/2022 11:04:48 AM
Siegen Crew
II.3
Overall Posts Rated:
8181
IMO that is easy mode. Foul problems on a player are a important usage- and price relevant factor.

From: JuMax

To: bari
This Post:
11
315694.41 in reply to 315694.40
Date: 8/8/2022 11:11:13 AM
Sallenôves GOATS
II.2
Overall Posts Rated:
694694
Second Team:
Sallenôves GOATS II
Not price relevant to me if you train a player you draft
For small countries like Lubnan, you do not get so much big potentials (2 or 3 per season)
Imagine if 1 or 2 of them are getting foul trouble

This Post:
44
315694.42 in reply to 315694.41
Date: 8/8/2022 11:15:20 AM
Durham Wasps
II.4
Overall Posts Rated:
16621662
Second Team:
Sunderland Boilermakers
I've trained lots of players who were aggressive. And still I think you should need 48 minutes for training, even if that makes things difficult. Training shouldn't be easy, and we shouldn't expect 100% training every week for however many years we choose to train.

This Post:
33
315694.43 in reply to 315694.42
Date: 8/9/2022 10:12:36 AM
Syndicalists' BC
Naismith
Overall Posts Rated:
305305
I think there's the notion that all teams should be able to train 3 players fully that needs to be dismantled. I'd agree to stick with 48+ minutes, and encourage teams to stick with 2 players instead.
And imo, there should overall be a net benefit of an aggressive player, as opposed to a clear negative as it is now. It is definitely more difficult to train, but there should be a slight benefit at the end for you once you've trained them.

From: Moresbi

This Post:
00
315694.44 in reply to 315694.43
Date: 8/9/2022 3:17:46 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
9595
I partially disagree.
Teams have around 8/12 rosters, so (in my view) it makes sense to be able to, at least, train 1/3 of those (4).
The notion I would change would be the 48 min because that just (edit) induces games with 5 players only playing the full 48 min, which is not realistic at all. If it was slightly lower/higher, maybe teams/players would manage the team differently and games would tend to be more realistic.
As for the aggressivity factor, I would say slightly more steals/blocks from those players but that wouldn't make up for the lost time from the fouling out. The only measure for that would be less time needed for the training, IMO.

Last edited by Moresbi at 8/10/2022 6:10:29 AM

This Post:
00
315694.45 in reply to 315694.44
Date: 8/10/2022 9:16:27 PM
Sindicato S.A.
II.1
Overall Posts Rated:
109109
One idea could be for the GE to use a parameter or algorithm that weights both the number of minutes and appearances in the week's games.
That he would receive 100% training only if he appears in the 3 games of the week, applying a percentage penalty for each game less.

This Post:
00
315694.46 in reply to 315694.45
Date: 8/11/2022 2:02:50 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
9595
That might be restrictive, since (depending on minutes) you might not want to use players on all 3 games (or if you have bigger rosters, you might need to manage players differently)?

Message deleted