BuzzerBeater Forums

sry i missed a word there. i don't want them to play 48min/per game anymore.
instead they can play like a normal starter (at C and PF for example)

but not all players who played are getting trained. you have the possibility to select 3 players (at the trainings site). those 3 players train if they get enough minutes.

i don't want to give the possibility to train players that don't play in games at all. thats why i kept the 48+ min. but it doesn't matter (in version a) ) at what position they play those minutes. -> you train people not positions.

then i made a weaker version of my suggestion with version b). in this scenario you are right in a way. you still select three trainees like in version a), BUT these trainees have to spent there 48+ minutes either at a bigmen position or at a guard position to get 100% training. but because there a two positions, you can play them as a normal starter. it is a combination between positionbased and playerbased training.
(however the penality for osition training is much smaller)




Last edited by jonte at 11/22/2014 6:18:05 AM

I think that it is very important for BB to increase the incentives of training. IMHO, managers who invest heavily in training are more attached to their teams and more likely to stay longterm users (and view ads, buy supporter and Utopia teams, etc.). I think that it would also decrease the number of players who do things like daytrade, increase the number of players on the TL, and you will probably also see a greater variety of builds available on the TL and make it easier to play non-inside tactics.

My suggestion would be to decrease the number of minutes needed for optimal training. If you want to single position train you have play guys for the entire game in order to get 48 minutes. Why not decrease to something like 30-32 minutes. This would allow players to train 4 players a week. You could start 3 different players at one position and them up with a 4th player.

This would give more incentive for players to set more realistic lineups and allow players who train good players have a little easier time competing. It would also make it easier to give players out of position training as you could play a trainee out of position for one start and at their best position for second game and still be in good GS.

The new additions don't really change the fact that if you want to create the best possible players you need to play them out of position to get the quickest training so that you can put the most possible skill points on them.

@westri:

I think players should still have to start or at least play in games to get training. in real life players who are super talented but don't get minutes as rookies, don't develop well (like darko milicic).
your system makes training a minor matter. not from the financial site, because of course everybody would train. but from the management site. you don't have to spent any thought on how you want to have your training schemes for the next few seasons and how you could combine forward training with a guard you draw a year later or something.
and i think seeing your trainees play is important to get attached to them.

but as i suggested before, there is no need for them to play 48+ minutes/game.

the way to solve this would be that you select three players instead of a position to train. but they only get training if they get 48+ minutes/ week on two specific positions (guard/bigmen/forwards/wings). why two?

because you would have different strategies to use training.

play one trainee 48+min in a league game and two trainees 48+min in a friendly if you are in a high league.
OR train only two trainees and only use your friendly in a uebercompetitive league
OR play two trainees as normal starters in lower leagues and save the salary on other players for this position..

alternativ we could keep the positionbased training like it is but we would again have only 3 players who train and they only get training if the START at least in one game at their position. that way they can start one game at their training position and another on any other position without getting bad game shape.

as much as i like the idea of developing trainees without offpositiontraining, that little change that i described above would make the training experience so much more enjoyable that it has to be seen seperat from the other (good) suggestions in this thread.


Last edited by jonte at 11/24/2014 4:50:59 AM

I think that buzzerbeater has training "practices" and training incentives about right.

I believe that the training exemption benefit against the overextension tax, that training provides teams is a huge advantage.

I do however believe that the suggestion put forward (264484.87) about increasing training speed is worth further debate.

That said I have a couple of trainees who are nearing the pinnacle of their potential so Im not sure that increasing training speed will directly benefit myself, but I dod concede it is definitely worth further discussion

Just reducing from 48 to 36 the minute requirement without changing anything else would probably be a good idea. Technically you could train 4 players instead of 3, but that would be unlikely unless the planets align. So you can have 3 trainees and 1 quasi-trainee to mop up the remaining minutes.

The huge plus is that you can be a lot more competitive, if the minute requirement is lowered and you're guaranteed to reach the minimum minutes for full training much more easily.

Players would not train faster but you can train an extra player with relative ease. We would also put an end to all the whining about the coach stupidly subbing out a trainee in the last 2-3 minutes of a game for no apparent reason and help the managers with very foul prone trainees (who are even more difficult to manage and train)

Last edited by Lemonshine at 11/24/2014 6:58:13 AM

I do however believe that the suggestion put forward (264484.87) about increasing training speed is worth further debate.

I've always contended that for new managers the time investment is too high. It does not necessarily mean that you need to increase the training speed (say a 10% increase or so), you can also change training in other ways to make it more appealing or engaging.

I train big men. I had the best record in my league last season, despite training OD/PA 5 weeks. Training OD/PA for big men (or IS/ID/SB for guards) means running a very high risk of losing one or both weekly games, because you have to field a very subpar lineup. It's not as bad if you train SF, as they should be more balanced players. It takes a lot of commitment (and also some knowledge of the game) to train players out of position and truthfully it makes the game more challenging.

The way I see it you can either simplify the training system to make it easier to achieve full training as some are advocating (train players irrespective of the position the play at is the most common proposal) or increase the rewards (increase speed, allow training of more players). As things are, it's just really hard and not rewarding enough compared to buying fully trained players.

As things are, it's just really hard and not rewarding enough compared to buying fully trained players.

Yes it is hard work but I believe that the rewards are definitely there.

As I said previously I believe that the training exemption is a huge advantage.

Give the training exemption a couple more seasons and I believe you will see how it heavily it favours those who train their own players.

I dont think that we should totally stop people from buying fully trained players as I think a variety of strategies and ways to win is important to the game

The way I see it you can either simplify the training system to make it easier to achieve full training

I dont believe that this would help the game.

Buzzerbeater is a management game where strategies are important, dumbing it down for the masses will IMO alienate some of the existing long term players



Last edited by Sid Vicious at 11/24/2014 5:42:24 AM

I dont believe that this would help the game.

Buzzerbeater is a management game where strategies are important, dumbing it down for the masses will IMO alienate some of the existing long term players

I agree, I'd rather not simplify, but increase the benefits instead (10% faster training? Higher number of trained players?). It's just that most people here are advocating simplifying the system, rather than increasing the benefits for those who train.

The money sink they introduced does not really create an actual benefit to managers unless they are contending at the very very top (D1 leagues and B3). It doesn't reduce your costs, it just allows you to avoid a tax: in most cases you'll still be in the red on a weekly basis, just not by as much as if you had the tax on top.

Last edited by Lemonshine at 11/24/2014 5:55:54 AM