BuzzerBeater Forums

You actually hit the nail why the change would be bad: "You worry about market prices etc -you can train draft players, don't need to buy." I think it's a really big issue if "no one" is buying players anymore but just trains whole roster by themselves without any compromises.

I really like the active TL as I have quite opposite example from other online manager game that I play. In that game (hockey theme), you can train basically all your players for different positions, but the limit is that player have secret max attribute min 4, max 10) for each skill and you have to work with that but otherwise you can train without limits. There is about 8-10k teams in the game and last week there were 32 sold players in a week. I don't say that this change would make the TL completely useless as it is in this other game, but massive decrease with player values and TL activity might be expected.

you might be right.

Anyway, every season some managers sell whole squad and build(buy) new for season.
It is very common, every season I have new one starter in S5.

I am not that worry about low quantity of players for sale in new scenerio.
Someone will always sell to have funds for arena, gym etc.
Someone will always buy.

Lets say if for plan A you train 1x50k PG(OD) 1x100k C (IS) and two youngster 2x5k 1vs1(SF/PF).
You still need starting SG SF PF and some back ups. You can buy them, you can use homegrown etc.

I get your point with hockey, personally I looked for specific big for few weeks ago and I didn't find anyone for sale.
So I gave up my idea.

I will never play in PLK in Poland.
Even if I would have luck to promote I would be relegated after one season.

So I am that guy (you are at the top "at the top it will be very though to beat me and teams who have been here for as long as I have.")

You say that top teams have 5xHoFs or 5xMVPs. Ok, I agree.
How many teams are top? let's say 500(I am +800, not top)
500 out of 15000 it is 3,3% teams that need 5xHOFs, rest need 4 or 3 or 2 or 1 or none.

To be safe in polish II it is enough to have two MVPs(I am talking about capped players, not unused potential) and some superstars.
So if you want to be in top 30(out of 875) in big community/country you just need 500k salary and two MVPs.
It's fine for me because top 16 is out of reach.

Last edited by Paul George at 5/25/2023 6:33:52 AM

This is why 'Plan B' is a much more reasonable choice, first it's not a drastic overhaul to the game, training and competitiveness itself.

Plan A would enable teams to build 3 top players at the same time in 3 different positions, without any challenge since you can choose for each of them what training you want.

Plan B is like an extra feature, it will allow you to build one player differently from the rest while keeping the challenge of having 2 players following the same training regime.

Some cons with Plan A

- Player initial skillset will become obsolete, good initial skillset will make player prices skyrocket, especially MVP and HOF potentials.

With Plan A you just go to the TL and buy the best skillset for each position, most top managers and the wealthiest managers will go for the 55+TSP 18 y/o, who is MVP or HOF. So we would be looking at MVPs with 55+ TSP being unbuyable below 1M, and 55+TSP HOFS will go for 2M atleast, most of them.

This would reduce much more compared to now and to plan B, the availability in the TL of good training prospects for less experienced teams, newer teams and teams that are not wealthy.

- Overcrowding of 'monster players' in DIV. 1, B3, BBM, NT, u21, etc

Bigger countries have many excellent managers, if all these countries can train 3 players differently, they will just build the best possible players, at an incredible increasing rate. Nowadays it's not easy to build great 200k players, that's part of the challenge. You just cannot buy 3 HOFS and ALL of them ending up amazing. Do we want to strengthen the monopoly of bigger nations or increase the challenges for them?

1 or 2 players will always be of lesser quality than the best trainee, this is something that keeps the balance of competitiveness.

With Plan B you don't allow a radical change like this, there is still some strategy for building great players, you can have your Star rookie and build him excellently, and the other 2 trainees you will have to adapt and plan according to their heights, holes in skillset and potential.

- Team composition will be the same in the most competitive leagues

We are looking at allowing 3 players to be developed individually, then top teams will build the players mostly in the same way, and with very similar builds, it would take away the diversity from player builds that vary from team to team. There will be no obstacle to make high OD/PA bigs. And high ID/IS Guards. Literally everybody will have teams very similar to each other.

Pros

- With Plan B it gives teams the opportunity to experiment, but in not such a radical way as Plan A

Ever wanted to develop a player for your team but in a different way? With this you could. You can have fun and build a big with high JR just because. You can have fun and build a guard with high rebounding and shotblocking just because. You can try and experiment a variety of different things because you are not limited by needing to train 3 players in the same way with the same training plan.

Now you don't need to make the choice between 'I want to train and have fun, but if im gonna train and invest then it needs to be properly thought about it, and I need to build competitive trainees, man I just wish I had the freedom to build a player however I like him to be.'

We forget that many coaches want to build players just for fun.

- One of the biggest pros is that this change would enable DIV 4, DIV 3, DIV 2, to become much more competitive in their own leagues and especially in cups.

How? You will have the possibility to build players in a much more complete and unrestricted way. Also you can build excellent lower salaries.

Conclusion

Plan B preserves the way BB trains, the way you need to plan and schedule your training seasons, your team composition, it would just be that extra training like an additional feature that allows you to have fun in a di

Last edited by sergio at 5/25/2023 7:31:48 AM

With training diversity, managers wouldn't be training three starting players, but FOUR!

For example, experienced managers would find a way to train 2 great shot blockers with high OD/PA, and 2 NT-level guards/forwards.

During the first 4-5 seasons, guards/forwards would only receive 2 position training (1vs1/JS for SF/PF & RB), while bigs would get 1 position training on OD/PA/ID/SB. Afterwards, you would switch guards to 1 position training (IS/OD/ID/JR/PA), while centers would get 2 position training (1vs1/JS for PG/SG & RB).

With great HOF guards and solid MVP bigs, you would end up with 155-160+ guards/forwards, & 140+ shot blockers.

Once people figure it out, everyone would start to train at least 4 players. It would either be 4 starters like in the example above, or 2 starters, and 2 high-value low-salary substitutes, that are often more expensive than the starters.

I have been following your homegrown journey and I have to say that it's been very interesting and exciting for me, even if your team is not mine. Thank you for your input, I want to complement your reply with my opinion, regarding homegrown teams.

I will not speak about Plan A or Plan B now, I want to give an overview about how this change will impact homegrown teams, and possibly micronations.

- Homegrown teams

In the last seasons, the number of homegrown teams and interest in homegrowing (not that type), has been increasing from coaches. Merchandise updates and details were revealed on how homegrown players are more profitable for teams compared to local players (same country) or foreigners, especially when these homegrown players are included in the NT (u21 or Senior)

This change would allow a much needed relief for teams to go the homegrown rate, it would allow teams to draft players in multiple seasons and actually ENABLE them to be trained PROPERLY.

With either of these changes you would be able to train your drafted players in different seasons, for their respective best potential positions.

Let's say you drafted a MVP 190cm (6'2) player, this season, and next season you draft a 206cm (6'7) HOF.

And both of them are excellent players. Now you have to make a choice. Either you sacrifice the guard or the big player. You cannot choose to develop both. And this is horrible for coaches in my honest opinion, because drafting your own player and developing him is an exciting feeling and it's incredibly fun, for many coaches it's one of the reasons they play this game, because of the draft aspect of the game.

I don't think you should force a player to sacrifice one or another draftee, first because it's demotivating, second because the chances of getting high potential players in draft that are actually trainable is not that high, thid because of the investment in the draft points which can cost quite a bit of $ and time.

So, coupling this change with the merchandise boost, it would create a lot more homegrown teams in the long run, incentivize training, and make the game more fun.


Micronations

I truly believe this would enable micronations to become a lot more competitive, and in the long run to strengthen micronations Senior NT's.

1. It would allow managers of micronations to buy/draft players in different seasons and give them proper full development according to their best skillset and height.

Coaches from the 'Nations Of' would be able to properly pick and develop the best trainees that are drafted by themselves or appear in the Transfer List in different seasons, since the availability of good trainees is very limited for micronations, this would add more flexibility for these coaches, and increase the quality and competitiveness of players from the Micronations and their respective u21's and NT's.