BuzzerBeater Forums

I will disagree with some of the statement right there. You can get a 140+ TSP player around age 24 as long as you have the right facilities and the right training acumen. After that getting to 150/160 is rather simple. What I'm trying to convey is that it should be a great accomplishment for trainers to stick with a plan and reach a player to those extreme heights. The Lebron effect and any other training change to make training "easier" will just inflate the player market of this kind of build of players, limiting the overall impact of these players and damaging the integrity of the game.

I'm aware NT training is until their early 30s, I've trained numerous players and advise NT coaches on plans internally for the USA. Having hundreds of these players make the game stale. I'm not saying we shouldn't reward these trainers, they deserve their money and if not money, they deserve gathering the fruits of their labor building a strong, competitive top level team. My opinion is that training has gotten simpler with the training buffs and it should be a challenge to get players to 160+ level TSP.

Last edited by tough at 10/15/2024 10:02:24 PM

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.

+1

I will disagree with some of the statement right there. You can get a 140+ TSP player around age 24 as long as you have the right facilities and the right training acumen.

18 years old to 24 years old equals more than a real year and a half. And all 140+ TSP players around age 24 are build the same. So that's not a valid point.

Building a team requires a lot of time and patience along with some money to sustain the team and it's coaches/infraestructures.


I do like how BB training system is. Not because I don't like other proposals (because I do), but because it is what it is. It is what BB told us to learn. It is our system.
I wouldn't be opposed to a change, because if we are completely honest, BB training as it is... It's a bit boring.

In Portugal we achieved 150 TSP by end of 24, without going the typical route of 1v1, instead a lot of trainings were mixed in and we achieved the same results as the others, so as long as you have the right facilities indeed you can get a player to 140 TSP.

What's the skill distribution of a typical player with 140-150+ TSP? For a guard is it DR and HA heavy with high JS (relative to JR and PA)? I bet it is.

JS
DR
HA
OD
IS

All these skills are indispensable to every position in the game, add ID as well for SF/PF/C, just search on the market what the goal is for high TSP players and you will understand their skill distribution

How is DR indispensable?

DR is one of the most common skills in high TSP players probably because it's a two-player skill to train with one-on-one and seems to pop relatively fast. Great for a game that aims to have a bunch of Chris Paul-like PGs or Kobe Bryant-like SGs. I think that's part of the point I've been making, this isn't 2012 anymore, yet the training system is set up to tilt the most efficient training approaches towards developing very similar types of players. It's time to rethink this, in my opinion.

I still feel somewhat dissatisfied with the training proposal I suggested earlier.

- The duo training system (319331.191) may have some side effects or disadvantages (319331.193).
- Regarding the topic of removing training positions, my proposal (323722.9) makes the 48+ arrangement unworkable, eliminating the need to choose between the number of trainees and the risk associated with 48+.
Additionally, for teams in the top league, the difficulty of staying in the top league seems to decrease somewhat.
The related points can be found in these posts by BB-Marin: (273660.21), (273660.38), (273660.39), or in this review of opposing views: (323722.8).

The new proposal I have in mind is to add a new training option.
(The old training method remains unchanged.)

- Its training speed is just a little slower than 1/2-position training but still acceptable, allowing for greater lineup flexibility and stronger match competitiveness.
- To avoid making it too easy to balance match competitiveness and training in the top league, training speed will be lower when the division level is higher.

The details are as follows:

1. Choose up to 3/6 players, and by accumulating the same playing time as before in the designated two/three positions, then players will receive complete training.
- Training would roughly change like this: https://imgur.com/f5djeSS

2. Designated players will face greater burdens and pressure in higher-level divisions, leading to a decline in training effectiveness.

- The training speed, relative to the existing 1-position training / 2-position training, can be categorized as follows: High ◎, Medium ○, Low △.
(Option 1)
In Div. I, it is Low △; in Div. II, it is Medium ○; in Div. III and below, it is High ◎.
However, the division where the "fresh team league" is located is enforced as High ◎.
(Option 2)
Div. I is Low △; the division where the "fresh team league" is located is High ◎; others are Medium ○.

- Suppose the training speed for 1/2/3-position training are 1 : 0.75 : 0.4.
For two positions with up to 3 players chosen, the training speeds relative to 1-position training can be High ◎ = 95%, Medium ○ = 85%, and Low △ = 80%.
For three positions with up to 6 players chosen, the training speeds relative to 2-position training can be High ◎ = 95%, Medium ○ = 85%, and Low △ = 65%.
(High = slightly slower than 1/2-positions training, Medium = slightly slower than 90%, Low = slightly faster than 2/3-positions training)

Feel free to bring up any possible side effects and disadvantages.


2024/11/5 update
- BB might need to proactively remind managers that training speed slows down in Division II and above.
For example, a message could pop up when pressing "Update Training." (325503.25)

- For tanking, an anti-tanking clause can be added:
If in all regular season game during that week, a starting player is significantly weaker than the designated training player—for example, if the total salary of the starting five players is lower than that of the designated training player—then the designated player will experience a decrease in training effectiveness due to a blow to their self-esteem. (325503.27)

- add "The old training method remains unchanged."

2024/11/6 update
- For anti-tanking clause, "In any regular season game during that week" is changed to "in all regular season games that week." (325503.30)

- BB has its own definition of who the starting players are. (325503.34)

2024/11/9 update
- Add another option for the relationship between training speed and division. (325503.27)

2024/11/11 update
- The training speed Medium for 2-position with up to 3 players is changed from 90% to 85%.

Last edited by little Guest at 11/11/2024 7:57:48 AM

This proposal complicates the training system too much. Your method also pushes managers to make a decision between training homegrown draftees in a lower division with inflated salaries so they still receive quicker training speeds or promoting which allows easier management of salaries but a decrease in training speed.

This then might lead to managers forcing to sell players as training becomes too slow (age already slows training!) in higher divisions. Why should managers be punished for creating good trainees and wanting to become competitive?

I've said many times, there is nothing wrong with the training system. It should not be easy to create players who are upwards of 150+TSP, it is a huge compromise of investing time and money and finding the right balance when having to train out of position. I will continue to bang this drum, but it is the salary formula that is the issue.

Last edited by js8 at 11/4/2024 1:30:17 PM

- ''To avoid making it too easy to balance match competitiveness and training in the top league, training speed will be lower when the division level is higher.''
this is crap, why should someone be pushined for training a player , Its hard enough to have a trainee in a first league and be competitive.
I feel some poeple are jelous of some teams which saved money for a lot of seasons, and now have stacked teams , with Nt Traineees .
Imo with the add of the gym some players train to quick and it need to be toned a bit down, but to rehaul the training system its crazy.


Last edited by kaktusi at 11/5/2024 5:30:34 AM