BuzzerBeater Forums

Suggestions > Another training idea

Another training idea

Set priority
Show messages by
This Post:
00
273717.18 in reply to 273717.17
Date: 10/4/2015 6:54:42 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
370370
...any system where you can compete with maximum efficiency and train with maximum efficiency without any limitations...
Of course, but no one is suggesting "without any limitations, certainly not me. How about some logical limitations, like a trainer only has so much time to spend on training each week, so some decisions have to be made where he applies himself and what skills he trains?


In your plan, a team can play their best lineup and can train three players fully. It's no longer a case where you have to prioritize, it's merely everyone gets their strongest lineup and gets to create three players with whatever training they want. Now, of course, that's a massive benefit to older, established strong teams in top leagues, since arguably the inability to continue to train players easily and still be competitive is the major thing that causes top teams to start the process of erosion that finally leads to their demotion and lower level teams moving up. I know - I've been there. If I could have trained three players and still played my full lineups, I probably would still be finding new and creative ways to blow promotion from II to I, rather than trying something entirely different.

It's hard to know how to continue a discussion where you evidently didn't even read the lines you quoted. I don't think I'll even try, other than to suggest you read first and respond to what you read second. Thank you.

This Post:
22
273717.19 in reply to 273717.18
Date: 10/5/2015 9:09:04 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
32293229
...any system where you can compete with maximum efficiency and train with maximum efficiency without any limitations...
Of course, but no one is suggesting "without any limitations, certainly not me. How about some logical limitations, like a trainer only has so much time to spend on training each week, so some decisions have to be made where he applies himself and what skills he trains?


In your plan, a team can play their best lineup and can train three players fully. It's no longer a case where you have to prioritize, it's merely everyone gets their strongest lineup and gets to create three players with whatever training they want. Now, of course, that's a massive benefit to older, established strong teams in top leagues, since arguably the inability to continue to train players easily and still be competitive is the major thing that causes top teams to start the process of erosion that finally leads to their demotion and lower level teams moving up. I know - I've been there. If I could have trained three players and still played my full lineups, I probably would still be finding new and creative ways to blow promotion from II to I, rather than trying something entirely different.

It's hard to know how to continue a discussion where you evidently didn't even read the lines you quoted. I don't think I'll even try, other than to suggest you read first and respond to what you read second. Thank you.


Well, I know that you have already stated that a link to minutes trained is illogical so I know that's not part of your logical plan, the details of which I must have missed somewhere while dazzled from your use of bold type and your Vulcan-like addiction to the use of the word logical and its opposite. What I can infer, however, is that you desire a system where the players on the end of the bench can be trained, and a system that allows you to field a full competitive lineup without worry about training, which... gosh, that's pretty much exactly what I was talking about.

If you have any logical limitations to your ideal plan that actually requires teams to make a meaningful choice between full out competitiveness, full out training, or some balance point in between, I'm all pointy ears. You're no doubt aware I've thrown out some ideas on that myself, even. But if you simply want to argue about training being illogical and comparing it to deck chairs on the Titanic then please don't be offended when I'm bold enough to question it.

Message deleted
This Post:
00
273717.21 in reply to 273717.19
Date: 10/5/2015 11:53:44 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
370370
Several possible answers to your insolence:
1. You still haven't read this, have you?
How about some logical limitations, like a trainer only has so much time to spend on training each week, so some decisions have to be made where he applies himself and what skills he trains?
Or is it just too hard to understand?

2. Sit on this and twirl a while, and then quit being such a child and live up to the GM attached to your name if you can. One would have hoped that "GM" would at the very least suggest a constructive contributor to the forums. Sometimes not, though, eh?

BTW, "... a system that allows you to field a full competitive lineup without worry about training" Do you see any logical disconnect there?

This Post:
00
273717.22 in reply to 273717.21
Date: 10/5/2015 2:35:42 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
32293229
Several possible answers to your insolence:
1. You still haven't read this, have you?
How about some logical limitations, like a trainer only has so much time to spend on training each week, so some decisions have to be made where he applies himself and what skills he trains?
Or is it just too hard to understand?


How, precisely, does this prevent a team in the NBBA, say, from having 10 high quality players that they use for all of their competitive matches, and then have the coach focus entirely on three 18 year olds with very high potential? I must have missed that, since you're clearly not avoiding it, and must have just answered this in invisible ink.

2. Sit on this and twirl a while, and then quit being such a child and live up to the GM attached to your name if you can. One would have hoped that "GM" would at the very least suggest a constructive contributor to the forums. Sometimes not, though, eh?


Do you even irony?

I am well aware of many of my flaws. My wife can certainly elaborate as needed. But as a constructive suggestion, I would counsel you to stop reacting to losing arguments by attacking your opponent. It's not something that makes your argument any stronger, and if you're hoping to reach the enlightened type of people who generally play this game, you have to respect their intelligence enough to see through ad hominem nonsense.

BTW, "... a system that allows you to field a full competitive lineup without worry about training" Do you see any logical disconnect there?


I'm answering this because I don't want to be accused of ducking this. Honestly, I have no clue what you're asking. My best guess is that I should have said "a full-strength" competitive lineup and still received maximum training, which is my biggest problem with the idea of free training. I've suggested alternatives, of course, but clearly your interest in constructive discussion focuses enthusiastically on attacking me and peripherally at best on any alternative that isn't "give me what I want in no uncertain terms".




This Post:
00
273717.23 in reply to 273717.22
Date: 10/5/2015 3:17:32 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
370370
1. You still haven't read this, have you?
How about some logical limitations, like a trainer only has so much time to spend on training each week, so some decisions have to be made where he applies himself and what skills he trains?

I must have missed that...
Correct, thank you.

Honestly, I have no clue what you're asking.
I'll buy that. So let everybody else discuss training without your interference and everybody benefits. Thank you.

This Post:
00
273717.24 in reply to 273717.23
Date: 10/5/2015 3:30:11 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
32293229
1. You still haven't read this, have you?
How about some logical limitations, like a trainer only has so much time to spend on training each week, so some decisions have to be made where he applies himself and what skills he trains?

I must have missed that...
Correct, thank you.


How, precisely, does this prevent a team in the NBBA, say, from having 10 high quality players that they use for all of their competitive matches, and then have the coach focus entirely on three 18 year olds with very high potential?

This Post:
00
273717.25 in reply to 273717.1
Date: 10/5/2015 3:31:20 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
370370
Select a training type
Select a primary trainee
Select a secondary trainee
Select a tertiary trainee

All players on the team receive team training of the skill, as per current speeds
The primary trainee receives single position training speed/focus per current speeds
The secondary trainee receives 2 position training speed/focus per current speeds
The tertiary trainee receives 3 position training speed/focus per current speeds


So far so good. Are you suggesting only ONE type of training is available per week? And how about limiting the amount of time/input the trainer is capable of instead of linking training directly to minutes played?

This Post:
00
273717.26 in reply to 273717.24
Date: 10/5/2015 3:35:40 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
370370
How, precisely, does this prevent a team in the NBBA, say, from having 10 high quality players that they use for all of their competitive matches, and then have the coach focus entirely on three 18 year olds with very high potential?

Sounds pretty realistic to me. Let's prevent it???????

Did you notice that my suggestion still limits training effects by limiting the time/input available to a trainer? Are YOU now suggesting unlimited training?!?!?


This Post:
22
273717.27 in reply to 273717.26
Date: 10/5/2015 3:59:37 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
32293229
How, precisely, does this prevent a team in the NBBA, say, from having 10 high quality players that they use for all of their competitive matches, and then have the coach focus entirely on three 18 year olds with very high potential?

Sounds pretty realistic to me. Let's prevent it???????

Did you notice that my suggestion still limits training effects by limiting the time/input available to a trainer? Are YOU now suggesting unlimited training?!?!?



Yes, it's realistic. It's also an abysmal decision for game balance. Right now, teams that get to the top start facing erosion because it's nearly impossible to train players at the top levels and still maintain a strong competitive roster. Teams get older, get shallower, and eventually run out of gas and move down. Remove that downward force and the game becomes much too easy for those who have a lot of money amassed and those who are already at the top.

Putting aside balance, it's also an abysmal decision for game design purposes. You are eliminating a meaningful choice that has some consequences - "Shall I train, shall I focus on training, or how shall I balance that?" and instead the default strategy becomes to train whatever you can afford and compete at your maximum ability. If there is only one right choice, there is no choice at all.

The suggestion that I'm endorsing unlimited training is patently absurd, and so I hope you got whatever laughs you wanted to get for yourself when typing it.

This Post:
00
273717.28 in reply to 273717.27
Date: 10/5/2015 5:28:10 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
370370
You seem to keep imagining a system without limits and therefore devoid of challenge. That's your imagination, not my idea. Expand your thoughts. Imagine a system with logical limitations, logical challenges for a manager to wrestle with ... a system that empowers every manager with the ability to compete AND train if they do it skillfully. That would be a system available to every manager and therefore one that strips the advantage away from those few managers who have figured out the illogical system in place now, takes away the ease of staying at the top that you dislike so much.

Now we're cookin'.

Advertisement