BuzzerBeater Forums

Speeding up training would be great imo. But what would that do with the game? Lots of things to think about before just doing a change like this.
Then the question is how easy the code is to change to. Some things are very complex as Marin and other BB's have explained.

I think the speed issue is easy enough. I think what would need to be considered is the tangental side effects and tweaks that would be needed as a consequence.

One side effect of faster training is the increased marginalization of lower potential levels, since those would cap that much faster than currently. And of course, given the current prevailing opinion of the draft as being only measurable in terms of the number of 18 year olds with MVP+ potential as is, this would be even more extreme.

Another side effect would be the increase in the escalation of young player salary compared to current. Of course, that wouldn't be a concern if we were certain that players would never train players who become unaffordable to them, but that's currently not the case.

I'd think that an increase in training speed in general is a good idea, but I'd rather see it targeted more as a rebalance of training altogether. Certainly the speed of 1v1, combined with how many players can receive training in it, is something that should be addressed, as is the absolute snail's pace training of JR.

Personally i find what is best with this game is also what drives managers away. The complex system that you need to figure out and then patiently try to see your plan go into motion.

That's absolutely what I like in the game too and, at the same time, I agree that this can be one of the reasons driving people away. If people would like a larger user base (currently leading the poll via app) we should find a way to make the game more palatable for new managers. People should think about good compromises, especially if they take little to nothing away from seasoned managers and are easy to implement.

My point is that I think the time investment needed to get to a certain level is long. There are people that assume new users should be fine enjoying the game competing at lower levels or from a disadvantaged position. I personally have enjoyed that and still enjoy it, but I disagree this applies to everyone and think we should ask people directly. Considering it takes a long time to build the arena and train players (even more so if you try to compete at the same time), I think that may be a logical concern for new users, assuming they resisted blowing all their money right away. Not only that, but making both slightly faster does not affect seasoned managers in any way.

Then the question is how easy the code is to change to. Some things are very complex as Marin and other BB's have explained.

That's clearly true. All we can do is speculate, however modifying some training speed parameters or reducing arena prices doesn't sound like as complex as adding new code or changing the GE.

I believe all the proposals listed by Sid Vicious have some merit and should be considered. I'm just puzzled that people want new users to boost numbers, but don't want to make any effort whatsoever to make it easier on them.

For the record, I'm totally with Sid Vicious when he says more should be made to help people understand key features of the game. I would like to add here that a lot of people don't even actively use/search the forums to look for information. The tutoring thread is fantastic, it would be great if people could land there before making some critical mistakes.

Last edited by Lemonshine at 11/8/2014 1:37:15 PM

Okay, you cannot develop an entire roster through in-house training. I have also seen it stated that you cannot develop an entire roster through the transfer list. The result: successful rosters are a mix of home-grown and pickups from the transfer list ... so where's the problem with that?

Actually most elite teams only build through the TL. As you progress through the ranks you will see less and less training. Your matter of fact responses as actual fact are laughable. There is a whole other side to BB you have yet to experience. This isn't meant to be demeaning, but you have hardly played this game long enough to have any opinions that are actual fact.

Thank you for the clarification. So, I guess the answer to my question is ... if you cannot build a roster entirely through in-house training, that isn't actually a problem. Okay, thanks, that's what I thought.

Next thing to fix: the dreadful minute management when your opponent walksover. It's awful to see that nearly every player gets fouled out, and how that ruins the training plan... I am not asking to benefit from walk-over, but not to be penalized when using the whole roster available every competitive match.

Personally i find what is best with this game is also what drives managers away. The complex system that you need to figure out and then patiently try to see your plan go into motion.

Now there's a winner! Patience is a virtue.

One side effect of faster training is the increased marginalization of lower potential levels, since those would cap that much faster than currently. And of course, given the current prevailing opinion of the draft as being only measurable in terms of the number of 18 year olds with MVP+ potential as is, this would be even more extreme.
Another side effect would be the increase in the escalation of young player salary compared to current. Of course, that wouldn't be a concern if we were certain that players would never train players who become unaffordable to them, but that's currently not the case.

+2!!
One thought would be an occasional lower potential level guy who actually has higher caps, sort of a diamond in the rough. Maybe they wouldn't be so easily discarded.
Escalation of young player salary would be even more problematical than it already is, as you observe, but just imagine the escalation of transfer prices of higher level potential youths! Out of sight!

Actually team training seems most natural and intuitive idea for basketball manager simulation. Kinda weird to think of only training 1 player and forcing him into X minutes at X position.

I have to agree with that. It has always struck me as a rather illogical compromise of basketball simulation in order to meet the need for manageable programming. If the programming of BB has progressed, maybe there is now room for some improvement as trainer suggests.


Last edited by Mike Franks at 11/8/2014 11:57:53 PM

One side effect of faster training is the increased marginalization of lower potential levels, since those would cap that much faster than currently. And of course, given the current prevailing opinion of the draft as being only measurable in terms of the number of 18 year olds with MVP+ potential as is, this would be even more extreme.
Another side effect would be the increase in the escalation of young player salary compared to current. Of course, that wouldn't be a concern if we were certain that players would never train players who become unaffordable to them, but that's currently not the case.

+2!!
One thought would be an occasional lower potential level guy who actually has higher caps, sort of a diamond in the rough. Maybe they wouldn't be so easily discarded.
Escalation of young player salary would be even more problematical than it already is, as you observe, but just imagine the escalation of transfer prices of higher level potential youths! Out of sight!

I'm not sure introducing more randomness into the potential is the answer, though, since the randomness of the draft is already (to put it charitably) unpopular. I think instead something that made lower potential players more valuable overall would be an appropriate direction to complement this - so, just for a hypothetical, on the general theme of "increase training speed" one might suggest the following implementation:

1. Training speed is increased for skills at lower levels (e.g., training IS for a player with IS 5 will be significantly faster than a player with IS 15).
2. Something similar to the elastic effect, whereby if a player's skill is among his lowest skills, it trains faster, and if it's among his highest, it trains slower.
3. A change to potential caps and salary formulas so that all skills below a certain value (7 or 8) do not affect the player's potential cap and do not significantly boost salary.
4. Some rebalancing of salary and cap calculations and training speed of certain regimes versus others (which would deserve much more analysis than this post is attempting).

So in an environment where those four changes were made, pretty much any player could be trained to be 7 or 8 in every skill plus some additional boosts in their primary skills, so someone wanting to build a homegrown team could still create attractive players even with lower potential players than today, and the utility of the middle potential players could be expanded. There would be incentive to train players with more balance than is usual, with much faster returns and lower salary impact from doing so, which could also shield some of the salary escalation issues.

Of course, the downside here is that at that point, it's essentially a mandate that all players should have 7 in all their secondary skills, which takes some of the variety out of the game. So there'd have to be something to temper that push somewhat. And that's of course the point - changes have ripples and it's important that those effects are understood and accounted for when rebalancing or we get the situation like we're in now, where the changes made to combat the overpowering of outside offense in the early seasons of the game have pretty much rendered inside offenses as the dominant paradigm.