BuzzerBeater Forums

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.

hrudey,

dont make me call you a wuss.

just stay and sya your opinions. all we have here are opinions, and truly some of what you say i agree.

Not a wuss. Well, not about this at least. It's just that at some point it's pretty much all been said and it's not actually fun to continue to have the same argument in a lot of different words. If something actually interesting or just grossly inaccurate comes up, of course, that may change things. I think my opinions are pretty well known on this at this point, and I think Lemon and Mike Franks' opinions are well known, and we may all be right about some of this at the same time.

One thing I will say about the rest of your post, that I neglected to include in the quote, is the whole "when division 1 teams need players they have the money" argument. At least for me, I've never had a million dollars in my bank account for much more than a week, if that. I've never sold a player for anywhere near that or bought one for much near that. At least in competitive high level play, when teams aren't tanking at least, it is hard to run a significant weekly profit and remain in the league, let alone threaten promotion. When tanking is more common, it's somewhat easier then since you can get 5th place with less effort, but hopefully the days of widespread tanking as a favored strategy are not returning anytime soon.

The last thing is that I wouldn't want to stay in my old IV league because I was doing well, necessarily. If I had been unable to promote out of there because I just wasn't good enough (which has become perilously close to being the case for me in II.4), I would have accepted that. I've been fortunate (or not, depending on the point of view) to be in highly competitive leagues for their level all the way up since I got out of my almost exclusively bot V series. My aim is always to start off with a clear vision for how I want to play the game, and then see how competitive I can be and how far I can go doing so. In Hattrick, I wanted to see how far I could push specific tactics at first, and then at some point I was mostly concerned to see how ridiculous I could make my match ratings in a "sustainable" economic manner. If I never had set foot in III but had challenging competition the whole time, felt like I had a fair chance of building a team that I wanted to build and had a playing field that was equal with the people I was competing with, that's pretty much good enough.

It's ludicrous that people, like hrudey, are defending the choice of creating inflation to make training more appealing.

...

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

I would find it ludicrous if that were, you know, actually what was being said.

What is happening here is that there is some inflation currently, and a small component of that is related to a decision that was made because of rampant unchecked deflation in the economy. Deflation that pushed player prices to extremely low levels compared to other sources of revenues, and so the idea that the best way to play the game was accumulate money prevailed. That prices are increasing now of course has had great damage on teams who relied exclusively on cheap veteran players to "improve" their clubs, especially as a whole new set of teams has been created from scratch in the past year with a corresponding surge in demand for players at a given level.

So of course, I would agree that hopefully this inflation might encourage people to do more training - or more accurately, hopefully prevent them from deciding to engage in the tank and collect money then buy overpriced roster and burn money cycle. But I don't think inflation is something that is an active "choice" to do that - that's simply the market's reaction to a major increase in demand, compounded by people reacting to the lack of value in lower level players by creating them much less frequently.

In the end, though, if you want players of a certain type on the market, you have to encourage them to be created. Remember how rare high SB or guards with high JR were? The salary and potential calculations were modified so those weren't as "expensive", plus the effectiveness of SB was boosted, to encourage that. I'd love to see something done to encourage more training of balanced players, especially with potential levels that teams won't touch today. But I don't think that this is what inflation is - it's just the correction of prices for players who were clearly underpriced, and I'm simply not sure yet that they're objectively overpriced yet. Higher than they used to be? Sure. I don't know what BB's goal is in terms of ideal player cost vs. fixed revenues, though.