BuzzerBeater Forums

In D2 is definitely possible, but you need: reasonably balanced players who can play multiple positions (in particular one of the guards and one of the bigs should be able to play SF without getting destroyed, depending on what you need to train). The problem is that these kind of players (with relevant secondaries) are a) extremely expensive; b) for lower level leagues, getting deleted because they have very high TSP/salary ratio, but sometimes fail to meet the FA criteria.

If your team is good enough and only have 2 trainees, you will probably be able to survive in some D1 as well, although it's a lot harder and involves properly scouting and choosing which game to throw and to go for every week. That's easier said than done of course and it means that without training you have a team that is probably good enough to make the playoffs.

That and then you need to hope you're not in a very competitive and balanced conference like the blue one here: http://www.buzzerbeater.com/league/978/overview.aspx

Last edited by Lemonshine at 3/24/2015 4:26:49 PM

As long as your not trying to promote it would be a lot easier to train out of position in lower leagues.

As long as you're not trying to promote, what is to prevent you from training out of position at any level?

Not only that, but "training out of position" is one of those illogical elements of training as it is currently constructed. Using an illogical flaw in the training structure to try to defend training is itself illogical.

C'mon, demoting is a possibility at any level except the very bottom. And if your whole argument is simply going to be "it's easier at the lower levels," then you can say that about everything in the entire game.

SPOILER ALERT: Here's the secret to BB, everyone ... "it's easier at the lower levels." Might as well close the forums now.

So, in summary:

As long as you're not trying to promote, what is to prevent you from training out of position at any level?

Here's the honest answer to that question: NOTHING. There is nothing preventing training out of position at any level. Nothing at all. Like with everything, it is harder at the top, but there is nothing preventing it.

Thank you.

Last edited by Mike Franks at 3/24/2015 5:27:51 PM

Harsher competition at the top is preventing an easy training.

Yes, we've already been there ... things are harder at the higher levels. Procedures and strategies are the same, only harder, maybe less room for error. The economy works at higher levels in a way it doesn't work at mid- and lower levels. Training is king. I think we've got that covered in every direction.

I have played online sport simulation games where those responsible for the game had teams at the lower and middle levels as well as the top levels. It was no secret. Some people complained about competing against people with intimate knowledge of how the game worked, but I was not one of them. I think it is a great idea. I think it would be a great idea for this game. It would be an astonishing eye-opener for the movers and shakers of BB, something seriously needed.

i cant understand why o why they dont give bloody rewards to players who played on regular games rather than scrimmage. all fall to the 48 mins rule

I said it and I repeat it. BBs have a track record of overdoing fixes or creating new problems by patching old ones. If you want to reward training, inflation is probably not the best solution exactly for the same reasons inflation is unwanted in the real world (with high inflation nobody has real control on who's gaining and who's losing out and how much, although some categories, like pensioners and employees, are pretty much sure to lose out). Here nobody has any control on when and where inflation will stop and who's winning and losing from it at various levels (even if it's just a perception).

It's ludicrous that people, like hrudey, are defending the choice of creating inflation to make training more appealing. There are hundreds of ways to make training more appealing, including but not limited to: lower training costs (and possibly more trainers available); faster training speed under certain circumstances; huge boosts to attendance when you feature a local hero who has grown in your team for several seasons (to the point that D1 top teams who haven't trained anybody will make the same money as relegation teams, despite winning a lot more); more draftees to increase the change you get somebody worth training (because you can get scrubs who are already capped, I did); reworking the whole training system one way or another (as both hrudey and Mike Franks have proposed multiple times).

There are so many options available that choosing to support inflation as the solution for making training profitable is mind boggling.

The only good thing about inflation is that the fixed costs (arena seats and trainers) become relatively less expensive compared to the value of the players and the money you can make from trading on the TL (although the taxes are holding people back).

they got the best view, the jacuzzi, the penthouse , the small size pool name it they probably got it. while we just try to enjoy the free breakfast buffet in the morning.

lol interesting comparison :D

Last edited by Lemonshine at 3/25/2015 8:20:47 AM

I have played online sport simulation games where those responsible for the game had teams at the lower and middle levels as well as the top levels. It was no secret. Some people complained about competing against people with intimate knowledge of how the game worked, but I was not one of them. I think it is a great idea. I think it would be a great idea for this game. It would be an astonishing eye-opener for the movers and shakers of BB, something seriously needed.

I wasn't going to post in the thread again, but I've got one more post for each of you and then I think I'm done.

First off, it was pretty well known in the USA community at some point that BB-Charles did in fact operate more than one team in the USA (one in particular he was using to test shotblocking, IIRC). It wasn't advertised, in contrast to the other sim you may mention, but it has happened previously and it would probably be a safe assumption that it continues to happen with the current development staff.

In terms of training being easier at lower levels, the simplest proof is your very argument about the woes of inflation. If you take it as a given you need better players to compete as you move up, then it naturally follows that the amount your competitiveness is impaired by replacing a starter with a trainee also grows. Look at a competitive NBBA game and try to figure out how to replace one of the starters with an 18 year old (or, heck, a 20 year old) and still have a reasonable shot of winning. Then do the same for an average IV series, and it's much less of an impediment.

But of course, if someone's plan is to ride a bunch of 30-somethings out of V, then ride a bunch of 30-somethings out of IV, and so on, it's no wonder that inflation makes it harder. But on the bright side, in any economic environment, that strategy has generally failed in the absence of a remarkable amount of daytrading, so if somebody wants to blame it on inflation or whatever else, I suppose that's easier than trying to figure out how to keep up with the next set of new teams who will be improving instead of deteriorating.