BuzzerBeater Forums

I would not agree with that assertion
each minute is more devastating than the last one

I guess your not familiar with how the training is set up then and how it is counted.
It has an exponential growth for every minute. And if the growth factor was 1.0 then 47 mins would only mean that you get 50% training. Now i dont think it is anywhere near 1.0 though so 47 will mean a lot more then 50% but still a fair bit from 100%

Where is the evidence for that? I have never experienced big setbacks in training from a few lost minutes, a 50% loss for one minutes less is absurd.

And when we reach 49 minutes in overtime, the player either explodes or becomes the incredible Hulk (depending on potential).

Well if you try to school sb and dont know how the thing you are explaining really works, youre making a moot point.

I was not asking to be schooled, but rather criticising those who throw out random numbers just because. Often enough you will read a panicking newbie asking if 47 minutes is really worth only x% (x being <<75) of full training, because his source says so.

Last edited by hupfingatsch ihm sein Knecht at 3/29/2012 5:07:56 PM

Well if you try to school sb and dont know how the thing you are explaining really works, youre making a moot point.

well, even if Manon does not know exactly which parameters, or even which function governs the training minutes vs. training gain, the point he made is undoubtedly true.. his statement that there is a greater difference between 47-48 minutes and 35-36 minutes (that is, if you get your player 35 minutes instead of 36, the difference in obtained training would be less than the difference between getting 48 and 47 minutes) is easily mathematically provable. just observe the derivatives of the function t=f(m) where m are the minutes and t is the obtained training. if you take the derivative f'(35) and f'(47), for any function which has a growth greater than linear, it will hold f'(35)<f'(47).. for the linear growth f'(35)=f'(47).. you can use mathematical induction to prove that it is true for every m, irregardless of the function in use. and, since the bb developers have said that the training function doesn't have a linear training function, but one with a higher growth rate, the statement is completely valid independently of the parameters and the actual function they use.