BuzzerBeater Forums

I might be bias since I was fully homegrown for 4 years and even now just having one of my old draftees bought back in my team besides the ones I've trained all by myself.

For a homegrown team it definitely sucks that you have to kinda make due with what you get. For me it meant having my bigs be 6'4'', 6'10'' and 6'11'' and my guards be 6'0'', 6'3'', 6'4'', 6'7'', 6'9'' and 6'10''. You can probably imagine how difficult it has been to have any kind of coherent training to them since everyone develops in such different pace. With the suggested system I could've trained the 6'10''+ guys to be the bigs and then below that for guards. The team would definitely be more competitive at least. But then again I have been able to compete pretty well even with these circumstances.

However, there's absolutely no chance I could challenge the top teams of the country, so yeah while being homegrown is quite profitable, it's not a strategy that you can succeed with in the bigger countries even if you do everything right and get extremely lucky with the draftees. With the suggested change it might become little bit more viable strategy, but still I doubt we'll see a homegrown national champion from any medium to large country. That would require speeding up 2 position training to maybe 85-90% of one position training, or having some kind of homegrown team chemistry boost to the team performance. But that's whole another topic.


I also had another compromise option come in mind. Maybe we could implement the plan A, but the condition could be that you have to set the plan for next week before Friday training update. So if everything goes well and you follow the training plan, you can have training from multiple positions. However, screw something up and you can't change the plan. If you follow the old training system where you can train only one training, you would still be able to change the training mid week.

So you could choose to play it safe by the old system or risk it with the new system. It would make sense that more complicated training regime requires more planning beforehand and is more difficult to execute - therefore you'd have to set the schedule early. Though this might cause quite many angry posts to the forums when someone risks it with poor results :D

Anyway, I'd be fine with the current system, plan A or plan B. I know me and all other homegrown teams would benefit from the changes.

To me the micromanagement created by training is one of the tricky things that requires long and short term strategy so I would like to keep it that way, or a similar one. And it's not like if it favors me at the moment given I've been struggling to be competitive while training 3 guards at C for 2 seasons now...
But I totally understand why people would like to have more flexibility with their training plans.

But that would still be a no, mainly from a management and decision-making perspective.

I'm pretty sure that the people that made buzzerbeater, considered all sorts of options with how the training should work, including the option you suggested. And their choice was to restrict the manager and force them to make a choice whether they want to train guards, forwards, or centers. Such a training regiment has created many challenges that the managers needed to face and overcome. I would argue that it is one of the most fundamental parts of bb.

Training diversity would essentially change one of the core aspects of the game. So it's crucial to consider the long term effect of such a change.

But, I haven't seen that in your post. You are obviously very biased towards the change, since you mentioned 7 pros, and only 4 cons. And you haven't even mentioned some of the most obvious problems that this change could cause for new users:

- There are many managers who don't train players, and don't have a trainer. This change would bring more interest in training, which would inevitably cause an inflation of trainer prices -> bad for new users.
- The demand for draftees could potentially increase, which could make their price go higher -> bad for new users.
- Saying "Might change TL prices" is not enough. An effect of this change on TL prices would have to be carefully analyzed, and made sure it doesn't screw up the game.

Did anyone even consider the over-inflation with high tsp players that we would get in 10-15 seasons with training diversity, and how that would affect the game, and the in-game economy?

Unless everything is taken into consideration with such a huge change, than I vote "no".

Last edited by tunjevinа at 5/24/2023 7:21:18 PM

Training has been the same for 60 seasons, why change it now. In my opinion, training players is the best part of Buzzerbeater. We now have the gym, training court, and youth trainers. Balancing training and being competitive keeps me interested in this game. The game has to remain challenging!