BuzzerBeater Forums

Yeah, you give the same argument, to which I give the same response. Those points you made about it being too easy etc and it throwing out the economy are valid, but only if a simple change was made. If it was thought through, taking the possible disadvantages into account, these problems could be countered.

hmm, let's, for the sake of the argument, suppose that a model where the training is mostly based on the quality of the trainer instead of played minutes is introduced.. in the long run, this means that with adequate funding and good trainers you could develop a player in a PG with world-class skills without him even playing one minute at that position. yeah, that is a pretty extreme example, but it disproves the "realism" idea..

the good thing about the current model is that it makes you think as a coach who has some good prospects in his team and knows that they won't develop if they are not given playing time, irregardless of the amount of time spent practising in the gym by themselves.. also, it creates more of a balance between very good teams and new ones, which makes this game work.. if you are a good team, you will probably have more strong games per week and therefore won't be able to field all the players you wanted for the required amount of time.. however, you can compensate that by having a world-class trainer and still manage to train some good prospects.. if you don't have the money to afford a world-class trainer, you can still train players by making them play enough minutes, as you'll have less strong games per week.. your proposed model would definitely bias this whole thing towards the richer teams.

Who says it has to be done that way? There are loads of different ways it could be done, with varying advantages to different managers. I don't think Kobehas ever played C but he has analysed what Cs do and taken parts of their game into his. To deny this opportunity is silly.

Well, why don't you avail yourself of the suggestion thread, so that we don't waste this opportunity. Then we can all comment on whether your proposed more realistic training design is balanced or not.

Personally, I love the training system in BB, as annoying and unrealistic as it is. Why? Because it's excruciating coming up with a strategy that can balance winning league games, winning cup games, and training players. And that pain of trying to devise a good strategy makes following its outcome incredibly compelling. I mean we all here probably love checking BB on Fridays, to see if out little guys got any pops. I also really like that the BB training system forces people to interact via the transfer list. It's pretty hard to train all of your own players, so people are forced to fill some of their team needs with the products of other peoples' training.

I've played many sports manager games that have a more broad training method, and frankly, they are all pretty damn boring. Sure, it's nice when my players get better, and more of them get better every training update, but it's very much a "ho hum, yay whatever" event. For me it doesn't in any way reach the feeling of having a BB player pop unexpected.

I love the pops too.

I look forward to them in each of the sport simulation games I play.

yes
what you said