BuzzerBeater Forums

I could be wrong, but it seems to me that the reason for decrease in training has more to do with the number of positions trained rather than the number of people trained. If it was the number of people, then you could do team passing training with just 5 players and get skill pops faster than training SG/PG with 6 players. This wouldn't make sense.

In other management games it seems that training that is limited to less people is faster partly due to the economical and tactical advantage given to each slot. For example, in HT, keepers train fastest, but you can only train a maximum of two players. Defenders train the slowest, but you can train 10 players.

In BB, if you drop your training focus to 1 position, the max that you could fully train would be 3 (given that you only play 1 player in the training slot per match and they don't foul or injure out). Your team's ratings wouldn't increase by that much (tactical handicap) and you wouldn't have as many players to sell (economic handicap).

This is of course, just my guess and I could be completely wrong, but I seriously doubt that training only 2 players in 2 slots (PG/SG combo) would be more effective than training 3 in one slot only.

That is exactly what I'm trying to figure out eastend. I'm curious because I had two guys on my team pick up 3-4 minutes at C that I didn't plan on. I'm curious if that means the guys I want to get the training will now receive slightly less because there are two additional people being trained.

number of people trained doenst effect it at all. Just number of positions and minutes.

I second that.

Minutes are the solemn base for calculating the relative training effect within the chosen type of training regime.

Minutes (of the individual player in the individual training position) * type of training (single, mono, team) = effect

How much drop off is there in going from 1 player (PG) to 2 players (PG/SG) or from 2 players (PG/SG/SF) to team training?

I would say that you would get exactly half of the training training 2 positions in stead of 1. In other words you;ll get the same total training points and you split them however you want.

i would say you would more training with more, but it the effiency the same.

Good players give good money, so a bit concentration could be good and you could buy older cheaper player.

Currently I'm training 2 positions, but I'm wondering about potentially switching to 1 position to train players faster. Not sure yet though :/

i would say you would more training with more.

Yeah, that's exactly what I used to think and it is easy to assume this. But I asked about this quite recently and Juice commented saying that he thinks 1 position gets exactly double the 2 position training does. This leads me then to assume that 1 position training is more effective IF you can manage the minutes correctly.

That's a big IF because it is a lot harder to get 48 mins each on 1 position training. And each minute missed is worth twice that of 2 position training.

I still 2 postion at the moment, but maybe not next season.

number of people trained doenst effect it at all. Just number of positions and minutes.

This is indeed true. Waht could be interesting to know is whether is better for player Example to get x minutes of one position training of full training of two, three or even team training. That's actually i thoght this thread will be about. I guess nobody really knows but it could be useful information sometimes. (and let's say result for other trainee or what is better for the team is irrelevant, consider it as sn abstract problem)

Heres a question I often ask myself...

If Player A plays 3 times in a week and gets a collective total of 48mins in training positions from 65mins overall and Player B gets 48mins from 65mins in 2 games is this really exactly the same.

This question is not for training purposes as I assume that 100% the same BUT for GS I keep getting the feeling that the guy who's played 3x has on average worse GS... or is this my mind playing with me??!!