BuzzerBeater Forums

I get you with that. It's not that I think too many NBA rookies are at their potential, but I see your point, thanks. I just think it's a trade-off for adding some degree of realism. The system we have is like what could happen if there was no college basketball level and no developmental leagues, and all those players had to merge with the NBA. But I guess if we really wanted reality, the players would have contracts that expired and players became free agents, too... and I'm pretty sure that BB isn't heading in that direction... careful mucking with the system too much, it's not really broken.

But anyway, I hope the stuff on training ages and speeds and hidden attributes and all that get thought through and considered.

early-bloomer and late-bloomer lane would look like that
http://img684.imageshack.us/img684/4117/extraordinarycare...

You mean that speed of training would be on late-bloomers just faster? Means that you could train these players faster on late age than if they were youth? Or they would get better by themselves like your previous idea about skill boosting? I dont uderstand what do you mean.

I think what he’s getting is that the training peak for each player may vary. Currently, every player is training at his maximum (100%) rate from the time he is draft at 18/19 years old until he’s 21, when his training rate starts to decline. The rate of decline is modified by his potential, which is currently a known factor (Starter, Star, All Star, Hall of Famer, etc.), even if we don’t know exactly what the rates are.

What I think is being suggested, and forgive me if I’m putting too much of my own suggestion in this, is that there are two significant changes being suggested. First, the age when a player is training at his maximum (100%) rate should vary among different players. So, an “early bloomer” could be like the current players who start out training at 100% and then decline starting at some older age, while a “late bloomer” might not train at 100% of his best training rate right away, but he will reach this rate when he’s a little older, like maybe when he is 20 or 22, etc., and then eventually his training rate will also decline, as 21-year-olds currently do.

Second, the rate at which the training rate should vary for each player. This is actually how it works now, as each player’s Potential is essentially a label for the modifier of each player’s “training rate decay”, and players with higher Potential basically have a slower training rate decline than players with lower Potential. But if the we need to adjust for “late bloomers” and varying ages at which players are considered their most trainable, each player will also need to have a time table for when the maximum training rate is achieved and how fast the training rates increase before hitting the maximum, how long the maximum training rate is sustained, and how fast the training rates will decrease from the maximum.

If I had some graph paper and I wasn’t so lazy, I could just draw a simple diagram that would probably be clearer. But I don’t the suggestion is really all that complicated. But then again, as I stated a couple of posts ago, I am in the Center of the Universe.

i said the training is silly atm, but it is also a real funny part to make player in 2-3 years 2-3 times that good then before - you will never see that in reality but it is more fun then drafting a complete player who maybe get 1-2 pops each season(even if you could make the tu with more action when you give those pops every player, because normally you donÄt train just 3 guys^^)

I see that my skill blooms idea was rejected so I thought about Career lines. It's the same training just faster or slower. lets say that 100% is current speed. but player would have some periods, when his skills would grow faster or slower from (50% to 200%). If old player has green 170-200 % period, it means that he will grow 1.7 - 2 times faster than current speed, so probably it would be faster than young player in current speed right?

Hmm... would be interesting to have here players which can grow slower but for almost whole career. I dont think that is should be like that they have to have same training rate on the age 22-25 like normal players on 18-21.

In fact they could have it like 24 old players but from 18 to 28, every year is the same. And it would not be complicated for anyone to understand. Of course, you can waste your space by training them on 1 post, but more efficient would be to train more of them 2 post.. And after 28 they will be soon dead anyway.

The reason why Im suggesting something different than this:
http://img684.imageshack.us/img684/4117/extraordinarycare...
..is the fact that it could be efficient only for NT teams (farming) - current slower training and potential cap is a rescue for trainers of NT players, which are not forced by NT managers to sale players in late age if they dont want to train them and doesnt want to look in eyes of comunity like selfish centre of Universe.... so is a good thing that the training cap is here relatively early

Other way - normally you have to develop player for sale or for your team, but you never can afford to waste with anyone his whole career, unless there would be like 5 of them (I suggest) (or lately the whole team - team training).

Anyway it should not be hidden atribute, because it would be insane to find someone like that on Transfer market.

boost but not in this dimension ;)

"It's the whole beauty of unpredictable life."

I wish I could share your detachment, but I think I speak for the majority of mankind that we seek to limit or control our risks. That is why I would suggest, if we accept the possibility of career-threatening injury or loss of skills, that we also have a chance to insure against such a catastrophe.

I would think it could work similar to our decision to scout, with x amount of dollars per week buying x amount of insurance for the team. The mechanism by which the insurance is claimed would require some thought, but perhaps related to a multiple of the player's weekly salary. Big teams with big salary loads would have the chance to buy more insurance, little teams might choose to save $500,000 to cover such a loss of a div. IV star. An NBBA team loses the equivalent of a Greg Oden, collects the insurance, a lump sum of, say 3 million, then can go out buy another such player, promote that promising 22 year old, or some other option. For realism's sake, the "Greg Oden" is then released, with a dramatic drop in skill levels (say, everything cut in half), and as a free agent tries to land with another team.