BuzzerBeater Forums

Now that i think of it, maybe its good it drops that way as other skills develop quite rapidly aswell. And if you have 12 players with say inept stamina they will all get good minutes every week also :P

I thing that the rule with stamina is good. It makes an obligation for every team to make the substitutes play at least 48 minutes. This rule is the same for everyone and everybody knows it. You can not play all the games with the same team, it makes tactics more interesting and gives a bigger role to the managers that we are...that's why the game is interesting. Otherwise it will be the same every game and every week...and it will be boring!

I see your point, and I agree that it's necessary to increase the role backups play. The problem is the negatives far outweigh the benefits of this rule.

1) As has been stated by others, if a player gets injured for a few weeks his stamina can drop several times. With a lack of individualized training this seems a bit absurd. I can understand a player having a recovery process following an injury, especially one in excess of 4 weeks, but to have to stop everything the team is doing training-wise to get one player back into game shape is a bit much. It just seems to me that every player becomes a time bomb in this current format. Eventually, the transfer list will be littered with players who have good skills and awful stamina because they stubbed their toe a couple times over the course of a few seasons. Give us an option to have players forgo their skills training in favor of stamina training (even if it's at a reduced rate) on an individual basis and this problem ceases to exist.

2) If players naturally lose stamina for not playing enough minutes, shouldn't they naturally increase stamina for playing more? It seems pretty common sense to me. Give players who play enough minutes a week stamina gains. I'm not talking a level a week mind you, but over the course of a season a player who gets a significant amount of playing time should see some stamina increases.

3) Why twist my arm more? There are already two negatives to playing starters too much: increased chance of injury and drops in game shape.

I think the stamina decay is a good idea in some aspects but it's a bit unreasonable in it's current format and needs another look.

Large amount of injuries , coupled with the massive loss in stamina ... 3-4 ranks.. to many members of my team... has basically derailed my team.

Why should i have to train stamina for a month.. and ruin my teams training further.

Not only do the injuried players miss training... , but now..the rest of the team will..as i will be forced to train stamina.

This is the most depressing game mechanism... it is ruining my team completely.

Teams should be compensated their Stamina back at very least.

3-4 stanima drops on an injured player is rediculous.

Times that by 3-4 players..and the love of your team and enjoyment goes flying out the window.

I think Stamina is just lame, period. It's lame in Hattrick and it is lame in Buzzerbeater.

Along with Enthusiasm, it was something "adopted" from Hattrick that really should be abolished.

I don't agree there, the fact that we have something like enthusiasm opens a lot more tactical options and requieres more strategic play.

Not only do the injuried players miss training... , but now..the rest of the team will..as i will be forced to train stamina.

This is the most depressing game mechanism... it is ruining my team completely.

Teams should be compensated their Stamina back at very least.

3-4 stanima drops on an injured player is rediculous.

Times that by 3-4 players..and the love of your team and enjoyment goes flying out the window.

I feel for you, and this is precisely the thing I was talking about. Stamina decay for players who don't play? Fine. So why no increases when they do play? Make stamina training supplementary to a set amount players get just for playing 'x' number of minutes each week. If nothing else, make stamina like enthusiasm in that it migrates toward a set amount (i.e. average) as long as the player is getting a satisfactory amount of minutes.

I don't agree there, the fact that we have something like enthusiasm opens a lot more tactical options and requieres more strategic play.

I have to agree with this as well. It's not that the two shouldn't be factors, it's just the stamina setup as it stands currently is nonsensical and detrimental. It's bad enough to lose a player for a few weeks. You lose out on training time and the benefits of having him playing. To essentially lose more of his effectiveness after he's "recovered" is just a kick in the gut after you're already eating pavement. And to have to basically stop production across the whole team to fix the problem with one player is ridiculous.

Hattrick tried to address this with that partial stamina training crap, but simply throwing a new training variable at us without there being a specific explanation of how stamina percentages affect the other training is just mean. So please BB ... if you do make a change try not to go this route. And if you do, I'd like specifics so I'm not playing frigging guessing games again.

Edited by Ice-T (1/11/2008 10:27:33 PM CET)

Last edited by Tracy Marrow at 1/11/2008 10:27:33 PM

Can there be any fix to the massive amount of stanima loss.

Its ruined many of my players and derailed my training for months to come.

A thought (sorry if it is not new)

The extent to which Injured players lose stamina depends on the level of the team doctor.
A good doctor, we could say, has arcane wisdom in the areas of treadmills, swimming pools and chair exercises.

Thoughts?

in my opinion there's no sense to the stamina drop by lack of minutes and no up for the minutes played...

to represent this there's a Practice "skill"...

no sense for stamina drops anyway

in my opinion there's no sense to the stamina drop by lack of minutes and no up for the minutes played...

to represent this there's a Practice "skill"...

no sense for stamina drops anyway

Agree...what happened to playing yourself into shape?

Steve