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.

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

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.

Yes, I agree that such a decision arises when promoting from Division III to Division II.
Some people might choose to stay in Division III and intentionally avoid promotion.

First, 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."

Next, some management strategies may not be suitable for higher-level divisions.
This situation is not uncommon.
For example, in a less competitive Division II, it might be possible to use 1-position training to develop three players while promoting to Division I.
However, this approach may not be feasible in Division I.
At this point, the manager has to decide whether to maintain their original management approach, which will quickly lead them back to the original division, or to change their management strategy to one that is suitable for staying in that league.

This then might lead to managers forcing to sell players as training becomes too slow (age already slows training!) in higher divisions.

In my limited thinking, if it's a training-focused team, they would likely choose to continue 1-position training for 2 to 3 players at this point (in Division II).
On the other hand, if it’s a match competitiveness-focused team, they would likely choose to sell 1 to 2 players and keep only one to continue 1-position training, just as you mentioned.
However, in the current training system, if a match competitiveness-focused team chooses to use 1-position training to train only 1 player in Division III, then compared to the new method, they would train an additional 1 to 2 players, and these 1 to 2 partially trained players would enter the transfer market.
This is a good thing because most people train players for their own use.
If the transfer market lacks quality players who are partially trained, it becomes difficult to sustain a management strategy focused on partially trained players.

Why should managers be punished for creating good trainees and wanting to become competitive?

Because BB does not allow you to have both match competitiveness and train 2 to 3 excellent players in higher-level leagues, it would be too easy to stay in higher-level leagues that way.
You can refer to these articles (273660.21)(273660.38)(273660.39) by BB-Marin or this summary of opposing views (323722.8).

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.

In my community, many people have left BB to play other basketball management games.
One or two of the reasons for leaving are that BB cannot allow everyone to train different skills individually.
It is too far from BB's philosophy, and it feels hopeless.
I don't know if anyone would leave the game because they want their key players to be trained by themselves while also hoping to have a more realistic lineup, where they don't have to start the young players who are still in training, but can instead field a complete starting lineup.
However, this is something we might still be able to improve.

I don’t think adding this training option will significantly affect the difficulty of training players with 150+ TSP because the match competitiveness of both you and your opponents may also increase.

- ''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.

This sentence describes the new training option.
Using the current 1/2-position training, the training speed will remain the same and will not decrease due to being in Division I.

BB hopes to let top league teams reduce the number of outstanding players trained (to replace aging players) in order to enhance match competitiveness.
Otherwise, teams could more easily overcome the generational succession and stay in the top league.

BB also hopes to let top league teams reduce the increase in on-field strength due to training in order to enhance match competitiveness.
Otherwise, teams behind will struggle to catch up in terms of on-field strength, leading to a situation where the strong remain strong in the short term (relative to generational succession).

You can refer to these articles (273660.21)(273660.38)(273660.39) by BB-Marin or this summary of opposing views (323722.8).



Last edited by little Guest at 11/6/2024 9:54:53 AM

In the official Discord group, EightPackKilla's response is as follows:
https://discord.com/channels/1252253812765495386/130288528...

Suggestion channel for this: but reading through it. It encourages tanking to train individuals, it gives more advantage to larger countries with more leagues compared to smaller countries with less leagues.

There’s a few different things about it that need tweaking.

You're right, these side effect may occur.

For tanking, an anti-tanking clause can be added:
If in any 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.

Regarding the fact that countries of different sizes benefit differently, I haven't thought of a good solution for this yet.
If training effectiveness varies within the same division, there might be complaints about unfairness.


New note added
- Add another option for the relationship between training speed and division:
Div. I is Low △; the division where the "fresh team league" is located is High ◎; others are Medium ○.
It improves the situation where countries of different sizes benefit differently.

Last edited by little Guest at 11/9/2024 1:36:49 AM