BuzzerBeater Forums

Sorry, it's been forever since I last posted in this forum. I save the posts for the important things now, and this issue has been nagging me for a very long time, years I'd say. Training needs an overhaul.

How people train - All you have to do is look at the players with the most TSP available on the TL and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that managers like to train one-on-one since so many available players' best skills are a Handling and Driving. Jump Shot is the next biggest thing. So managers tend to train two positions, but without compromising training rate by adding a second position for what's primarily a one-position training type.

Position equity - Something that's been posted going back many many years is that you can't just train your SF. And training sounds like it's something that's done in practice but in BB training only happens in games. It's really kinda weird.

There's a bunch of other observations I'd post here but I've gotten too old and lazy to lay it all out. Here's what I'd like to see in this thread:

1. Are you feeling like the training is fine since it's how it's always been done and it's how you like it, or are you itching for change here?

2. What would you like to see change in training? I'm sure we can collect a ton of good ideas for the developers to evaluate and think about transitioning over to.

Before I throw out my first suggestion for a new training system, I will, as I often used to do when I posted more, thank the developers for creating a game that's always been awesome, which I want to say in a post that might sound like criticism. It's constructive criticism, I'd love to help get the game even better!

Here's my first thought: Make training 50% practice and 50% in-game (or some ratio like that). Pick a skill you want to train for the week (like currently done), designate 1-3 players as the practice trainees, and pick up to 3 positions for in-game training. More practice players = less effective training. More in-game positions = less effective training. Skills can still be tied to positions with less effectiveness when training a skill 'out of position' like now, but with more options (such as JS for PG, SG, SF, and PF without penalty; IS for SF, PF and C without penalty; JR for PG, SF and SF, etc.). Other current factors impacting effectiveness can stay pretty must the same (rookies, age, height, etc.)

That's my earth-shattering suggestion. Not actually so radical, but perhaps more sensible.

Last edited by chihorn at 10/13/2024 8:56:02 PM

My only concern for every change we could imagine is only this one: There has to be a challenge for it to be fun!

Now the challenge is to get those minutes in that position but still trying to win games. The in-game position tranining system offer us something to deal with. What is going to be in other ideas?

My only concern for every change we could imagine is only this one: There has to be a challenge for it to be fun!

Now the challenge is to get those minutes in that position but still trying to win games. The in-game position tranining system offer us something to deal with. What is going to be in other ideas?

Great point. That's why I would propose that there were would still be in-game training, not just practice training. It's doesn't have to be exactly a 50-50 split, too. As issue that teams in higher leagues have is that it's near impossible to be competetive while also giving real minutes to a 2nd developing player. In a lower league, a manager can get away with throwing a young player in the ballpark of 65-80 TSP in the lineup, sometimes even as a starter, but not so much in the higher leagues. This is why managers in higher league train two-position skills like one-on-one and JS so much, since a manager can still train two players with max trainuing minutes in Cup games or scrimmages. I'm suggesting there needs to a means for a high-level team to still be able to develop draftees or ther prospects rather than rely on the TL for all long-term productivity from players. Scout out the high-leagues and try to find players in the starting lineup that were actually drafted by those teams. They're out there, but they're pretty rare.

Last edited by chihorn at 10/14/2024 9:43:05 AM

I think the training sistem need a downgrade, the engine is not prepared for players with +20 in 5 skills.

This comment isn't aimed to criticise your point, but all the suggestions and improvements I see people make to training (including the thread szewaa tagged), always lead to making training easier. We regularly see players of 155+TSP on the transfer list nowadays; we have had the training speed increased, youth trainers and gyms have been added, yet people still want to make training easier? I don't get it.

Winning titles is hard. Building balanced teams is hard. Why should the opposite of winning (ie: tanking to train) be any easier? Part of the challenge and enjoyment of training is making sure your trainees reach their weekly threshold of minutes despite sometimes playing out of position, sometimes defending tougher opponents and sometimes totally unbalancing your squad. For those managers who train three players single position, that also presents a challenge, but guess what.. there is a solution to making training easier! Train two players and reduce the chances of your trainees not getting their allocated minutes. It's a balance of risk vs reward.

If anything needs a major overhaul, it is the salary formula but that's a discussion for another thread. Fix that and we introduce new training options but until that's resolved, the obvious training choices will continue to be dominated by high IS guards and high SB bigs.

Last edited by js8 at 10/14/2024 7:27:51 PM

Thanks, and I agree that point isn't to make training easier, but to shift the training approach so that we don't end up with a TL filled with HN-DR freaks and PGs with not-great PA. I think we see this in the TL due to the training options we're given. We also see that higher division teams in larger countries struggle to develop home-grown players (even just developing one starting-level talent is a major challenge). I'm just looking for a means to create a more diverse player pool, and that would add to the possible strategy routes managers can take and improve the experience, in my opinion.
Right now, if someone drafts a rookie with awesome potential, average height (for this game), and balanced skills, so this player has to be training at PG or C to keep developing well-rounded skills? I always thought that moving a player out so far away from his best position to train him was kind of ridiculous when so many skills can be applied to three, or even four positions. Do we think Patrick Mahomes' HOF skills weren't developing as a rookie QB on the Chiefs during his first season as pro watching from the bench? Of course not. There should be a means for young players to improve without taking big in-game minutes, even if big strides in skill development still come from in-game action.
Honestly, this is the one big issue that every so often gets me to think about retiring from this game. I love so much about the game, but every time I go shopping for roster improvements on the TL, I just lose a little more interest when I see the same skill sets overemphasized in the available players over and over again as a result of the training methodology. I just re-upped my Supporter again, so I guess I'm not going away just yet. But maybe we can finally get the one major thing that has never ever been tinkered with to be open for improvement.

Last edited by chihorn at 10/14/2024 9:47:07 PM

When we discuss issues related to training positions, please make sure to include this summary of opposing views (323722.8).

Thanks, and I agree that point isn't to make training easier

But it does make training easier? Rather than forcing teams to train players by fielding them for 48+ minutes per week, you're suggesting to supplement some of their training by 'practice'.

It's not the training system that is causing little diversity in player pool, it's the salary formula. Fix that and you can create guards with high PS, you can create bigs with high JS and managers find ways to make new salary efficient monsters.

I hear you. Sure, giving some weight to trainig at 'practice' will make it easier to get rookies off the ground, but the value to training in practice vs. in-game can be weighted, and anyone relyinig on practice for fulling training would still come up short. Unless BB is going to roll a development league for players in higher leagues to use for rookies, the higher league managers have to use the TL for almost all starting-caliber players and even most of the key bench players. And unless we start seeing Wembayama-type rookies who are drafted with 95+ TSP, it's always going to take a bunch of seasons to get even the best rookies ready for a high-league starting lineup.

I also agree with you that salaries are a bit wonky. Why a player that happens to have high Rebounding gets a big salary boost doesn't make a tone of sense when other skills seem to have less of an impact on salary. Nevertheless, I personally still traing Rebounding a good deal and know that I need good rebounding efforts to win games, and I personally have never make training decisions based in the impact on salary. In fact, we'd be seeing more players on the TL with skills at those positions that impact salary disporportionately if most managers trained based on salary impact since they'd be dumping that players the most to cut payroll, but we just don't see that. Diving and Handling aren't skills that drive up salary, yet those ore the most common high skills for players on the TL with at least 102 TSP that i see.

In the end, I don't see making rookie-traiing a little easier as such a terrible thing, I don't think the of 'easininess' can be kept at a minimum. Maybe practice-training isn't the solution, I'm just looking at the results of where'we're at right now looking for a path towards making it more likely that we'll see greater diversity in players, and a greater diverty in paths towards success for managers. The training system goes back to the begining fo the game (I kinow, I've been playing this game for a while). The NBA was still featuring drive and dish players (like the young version of Chris Paul), and big centers who could plug the lane on defense and score in the post were still valued back then. Players salaries have been getting tweaked regularly over the years, but I just think it's time to finally think about how to improve one of the most impactful parts of this great game that's never been even tweaked based on observable outcomes.

I am open to changing training up, make it a point to earn training slots and ease the effectiveness of it. However one opportunity I see a lot with the training system and the buffs given to incentivize training is the value of a skill now.

When I'm speaking to value of a skill, I'm talking about the word colossal or legendary. Even those players above level legendary (20+) these skills are a dime a dozen now. You do a TL search for Outside Defense = 20+ and you will see 49 players.

Driving skill 20 or above is 135 players. 52 players for Jump shot.

If a skill is truly to be level colossal or legendary, there should be some sort of difficulty with earning that skill. The joy of getting the skill to legendary; the hard work and the glory of waking up that Friday morning to see your player get that skill pop should be celebrated. Right now the value of these skills are at its lowest point due to the decreasing manager pool. The player base will now be inflated further due to the Lebron effect aging players later. You will see 38+ age players play effortlessly in top tier leagues with the right staff in place; 40+ age players playing in 2nd and 3rd tier divisions regularly.

I agree we need to change the training, however we do need to revisit the value of skills and the difficulty doing so.