BuzzerBeater Forums

The mantra -- training cures all ills, you just have to wait six or eight sesons to see the fruits of your labor -- is getting pretty threadbare.

Six or eight seasons? Are we suffering from hyper-inflation of training times now too?

But, yes, training is the core of the solution, as every single player in the game that is pertinent to this thread has to be trained to get to that level by someone. If you don't want to do it, that's fine. If too many people don't want to do it, that's fine - and then they'll have to just pay more for those players.

You see red herrings everywhere and that's your ultimate argument that reduces everything into indistinct noise. The truth however is that people feel the current state is problematic enough to complain about prices. Could you say there were threads like this one, complaining because prices were too low, before Utopia came about? Considering that there were more users back then, you may draw your own conclusions about why threads complaining about inflation/deflation, prices etc etc keep coming out now, but didn't back then.

Here are two threads (215754.1) (161502.1)

The search function of the forums kind of sucks, so that'll hopefully do. I'm not even re-reading all of them, I just confirmed that in the first ten posts there were people complaining about falling prices and loss of enjoyment in the game, and referencing user numbers dropping.

I presume if I dug through all the old tanking threads, the complaint that training was worthless because players were too cheap and money was too powerful would probably occur quite frequently. I know Wolph at least beat that drum incessantly.

Ultimately you seem to be the one dismissing the problem as a non-issue, while all the open complaining from multiple people in multiple threads points to a widespread disappointment with the current situation.

Yes, and it is that dismissive attitude not only from him but pretty much across the board from the powers that be that will result in players leaving the site faster than anything else. I don't mind when someone disagrees with me -- how else are we going to learn? But to go to such lengths to preserve a flawed status quo as to dismiss the problem, and worse yet to dismiss those who are trying to shine light on the problem, will lose customers who expect the game to be improved where it needs it.

I think there's a difference here. I don't believe but am willing to entertain the notion that the inflation is a real, significant problem and not something that flared up because of a spike in users in a highly competitive new market combined with years of neglect of training players for lower levels. I don't believe and am probably past the point of considering free agency as a real solution, because if the goal is user retention, a solution that requires users to leave faster than they come in is no solution at all.

What I would say is fair to call me dismissive of is the same trope that "condition X disliked by poster Y" is what is causing people to leave the game, or is making the game too hard for new players or too easy for high level teams. To the extent that we're discussing inflation, I've suggested changes in training to actually allow people to create the players faster, changes to the draft to allow more "worthwhile" players, and I think all of these are things that could actually have a real effect on inflation plus at make deflation more survivable for people training as well, and I think would probably all benefit newer/lower level teams. I haven't, however, enthusiastically agreed with what you appear to consider the only acceptable solution, increasing the parameters of FA.

To this point, if I could for just a minute make this about your posts as you seem to frequently do about mine, the problem seems to be "some users can't buy players because they're too expensive" and the solution is "move more people into FA so they're not expensive" and everything that doesn't enthusiastically agree is dismissive/mocking/counterproductive. But of course, that's only a one way street - I mean, your post to Perpete for example about the real life leagues and training is the sort of thing that, if I had posted to you, you would have absolutely blasted and probably brought back up long after I'd stopped reading the thread, as has already happened once here.

In any case, as usual, we're getting nowhere. You have identified what you see as a problem and the one approved reaction to that problem, and the amount of gymnastics you're willing to undertake to maintain that opinion is more than the amount I'm willing to go through at this point. If you want to discuss changing training, changing the draft, things that encourage more worthwhile players to be created or alternate methods of creating them in the first place, I look forward to that. To the extent that you want to advocate for increased recycling of yesterday's players to push off the problem until tomorrow, have fun with that.

But, yes, training is the core of the solution, as every single player in the game that is pertinent to this thread has to be trained to get to that level by someone. If you don't want to do it, that's fine. If too many people don't want to do it, that's fine - and then they'll have to just pay more for those players

Word! For the few of us who still train, this thread is painful to read through. Regardless of the intention, it comes across as if to say, "Hey, let's tax the guys who are solving the problem we keep complaining about because they likely have too much cash on hand!"

At the end of the day, this huge problem (albeit only for a select few) is easily resolved through training, but the complainers don't want to invest the time into training, so better to complain about it day after day in the forums.

I think the thread is painful for everyone to read through at this point. I think acknowledging your voice here should probably be the end of it for me.

Not sure what your point was there, Manon. We should quote entire lengthy posts and let the reader guess what we are referring to instead of zeroing in to the small section we are responding to? Not quote a post at all and really let the reader guess? I think we are agreeing that negative attitudes in the forums turn off the reader, but does that apply to constructive suggestions as well, like limiting the cash in the game or enhancing the TL?

Word! For the few of us who still train, this thread is painful to read through. Regardless of the intention, it comes across as if to say, "Hey, let's tax the guys who are solving the problem we keep complaining about because they likely have too much cash on hand!"

At the end of the day, this huge problem (albeit only for a select few) is easily resolved through training, but the complainers don't want to invest the time into training, so better to complain about it day after day in the forums ~ steve teriyaki


Training alone cant solve all team issues. in the top league they can not train, maybe except 1 player depending how the league looks. Training and buying go hand and hand. Both way make money and create success for the ball club.

So I'm not saying Bb is going down the drain or none of that. I'm just saying be careful what you wish for, because everyone suffer together once you get your wish. A trainer manager is not better than manager that buy or vise versa.. The majority of great champions on this game bought players to win and to play BB. Some trained few to go so far but all of them bought more than they trained.

Let not try eliminate those who don't follow the same path as you followed. BB Marin need to inject fun in BB. all this tax and etc is not fun. Who wants sit here and talk about tax and all this other stuff ,after they get off work.

I'm come to Bb to relax. So yes it a turn off, but what I wont allow is other to ruin the game or one side it and take freedom of choices that people had to start. attacking some one saving account putting limits on what they can earn. that's way to extreme. The thing is place for each division for team works.

For that issues, I think everyone should fight for that freedom to save and spend how they choose. And if some don't like to see it, then don't come bringing those type of crazy ideas up to hinder other ways of play for your benefits or unjust advantages .

Last edited by Mr. Glass at 4/14/2015 4:11:51 PM

am willing to entertain the notion that the inflation is a real, significant problem and not something that flared up because of a spike in users in a highly competitive new market combined with years of neglect of training players for lower levels.

Ok let me dispel some misunderstanding here, otherwise you'll keep throwing this kind of reasoning at people without even noticing the underlying basic fallacy.

Please answer this: when prices were falling 3-5 years ago (that's pretty much the date of those 2 threads you managed to dig up) who exactly do you think was training/had trained all those players being cheaply sold into the market? The fairies? Or perhaps they had been trained by managers back then as well? And since you claim people were not training lower potential players, maybe 3-5 years ago all the trainees were Superstar potential or better?

Let's be clear about this: the world you so much like to portray where the majority does not train and just banks the profits or actively tanks does not exist. The majority of managers trains players and even those who are just banking profits usually train someon. Look no further than Manon. Perhaps you have numbers to support your point of view, but so far you just gave us your very personal view of the situation.

I don't believe and am probably past the point of considering free agency as a real solution, because if the goal is user retention, a solution that requires users to leave faster than they come in is no solution at all.

While we're at it let's dispel another myth. Managers choose to avoid training lower potential players because they are just not cool. The game limit the number of players by design. Since the majority of managers trains players, how do you suppose they choose who to train? A trainee with higher potential is not inherently evil, he simply can be trained for a little longer than a lower potential one. And even assuming you only do 2 position training all the time, you only need 6 draftees in 4-6 seasons (sometimes even more). That's 6 guys out of 12-18 you draft, but for most people it's like 2-3 draftees out of those 12-18. Again this is by game design, not because some managers are evil.

Perhaps you should just go around supporting Mike Franks proposed overhaul of the training system, as that's presumably the easiest way bad potential players are ever going to get training by game design.

Last edited by Lemonshine at 4/14/2015 4:13:54 PM

When we had those ridiculously low prices on the transfer there were a lot of teams that just skipped training entirely and set training to game shape all season long.

...or freethrows.