BuzzerBeater Forums

Apologies. I misinterpreted you saying allow new managers to be competitive quicker

As being quicker next season, or the season its implemented, etc.

Not that, 2 real life years after its implemented... it then enables people to be quicker.

It was a phrasing thing.

I would have been less confused by the phrasing if you had said, "In the future, allowing new managers to be competitive quicker"

or, it simply requires too much coding and will cause too many ingame bugs and they dont have anyone that can handle it anymore.

I certainly think this is true. Which is why we won't see a massive change to training or the game engine.

However, if we're going to have a Utopian discussion, the suggestion that we can choose different training for different players is a good one.

What I would like to see is the ridiculous idea to allow training "out of position" be removed and instead allow people to train, for example, a Center in passing by playing him at Center, and equally, let a Point Guard learn Inside Defence at the Point Guard position. Without penalty.

or, it simply requires too much coding and will cause too many ingame bugs and they dont have anyone that can handle it anymore.

I'd disagree. i don't think nobody can do it. I think that Marin has more pressing issues and thus can't free up enough time to look into it.

Also, what would you want to change? the effectiveness of tactics? that is probably tampering with minor %. tamper to much, and suddenly you get a swing to other tactics. I personally feel as if most tactics are rather balanced atm. The supply of players to make certain tactics work, that is an entirely different story.

However, if we're going to have a Utopian discussion, the suggestion that we can choose different training for different players is a good one.

What I would like to see is the ridiculous idea to allow training "out of position" be removed and instead allow people to train, for example, a Center in passing by playing him at Center, and equally, let a Point Guard learn Inside Defence at the Point Guard position. Without penalty.

Just wondering here (clarify for me) Do you still want the length penalty to exit or not? Cause i find it only logical that a 220 cm guy learns rebounding a lot faster than a 178cm guy. So that is something i wouldn't like to see changed. Otherwise, we'll go back to the era where 178 cm guy's play at centre and 210 cm players play at the guard (in which the 178 cm guy outrebounds the 210 guy on a consistent basis, which is just unrealistic. If you want that penalty removed, then you might aswell not give the players a height. One field less to worry about, means less coding.)

Also, i'm somewhat divided about the without penalty thing: Here is why:

Pro's:
if you want a more complete player (cause that is what we are referring to here) then i somewhat like the punishment. It only goes for the offensif side of things, since you can move your defensif assignments around as you please. That means that you are trading in a poor performance offensifly for futur rewards (i kinda like that idea). It also means that the SF spot remains the hardest to train, instead of having everyone being able to play it (with some oddities towards the C and PG).

Contra's
The system is rather logic as it is now. In the NBA, a bigman willl have a harder time getting his range right (how many bigmen jack up 3's consistently and drain them consistently? they are rather rare) where as i don't see many guards getting a ball with their back towards the basket and then pulling of a skyhook (which i consider a Big man skill).



Don't get me wrong here. I feel that training needs a change. Problem is finding the right balance (as it is with all cases).

I guess that without penalty was referred to the decreasing percentage of training received using a different spot than the main one (example: if you train ID in G position you get the 70% of the total received in C position) than to the height of the player trained.

Well, in that case, i refer to the previous part i posted about pro's and cons. It now serves a purpose. i like the fact that you give up something for the long run. requires more planning

Anyway I can't see any more pressing issues than increase the number of players in the market in a game that keeps away new managers because of not affordable prices. And to increase it we need something to speed up the training.

The problem with new managers in this game is that they get flooded with information. If they are bothered to get through all of the information, then they still need to understand it all. BB is a complex game and it's hard to understand. that is what made most of new users give up on it. The other problem is that most young people expect instant gratification. they want to see fast results of things. BB is a slow game in that regard. Speed it up and you could chase away plenty of users (as EGM-Manon referred to).

I will agree that BB has a problem holding onto new managers. I'll also agree with you that BB is slow paced game and that it is discouraging new players (once they understand how long it takes to move up, a fair amount of them quit) However, the one thing i won't agree upon is that you don't need to flood the market with players. Flooding the market with players means you push down prizes. Plenty of teams have bank accounts in excess of 15 Million! push down the prizes by flooding the market and they'll just be even more happy since they can then get the super players are a cheaper price, where as the bottom teams will see the value of training go down. You could also suggest the following: Let's increase the cash you earn from games, so that you can afford more players. However, that will just result in prices for the players going up even more (and more teams tanking to try and make it up higher).

I recognize that there is a problem with the way things are going currently. However, i haven't seen a something that could be considered as a great solution yet. Each suggestion that has been made up till now has some form of drawback.

I really didn't want to start a conversation here because I feel training threads, and game engine threads are pointless,
for the reasons already discussed, but you spent such a long time typing I suppose you deserve a reply.

Also, what would you want to change?

We could start with the utterly broken substitutions. Then move on to all the timing bugs in the actual match engine. In the several years I've been playing the only times substitutions have made sense is during NT games when I used a blank lineup, simply because it was the only way to get my best players on court most effectively. None of the coach settings work.

I accept you have the right to disagree about Marin's ability to do anything with the game engine but I've never seen anything he's done that has altered the actual game engine in any way whatsoever. And his obsession with silly changes (out of position penalty, promotion changes, removing the blank) tells me he does those because its all he can do. So I remain unconvinced that you're right.

Just wondering here (clarify for me) Do you still want the length penalty to exit or not? Cause i find it only logical that a 220 cm guy learns rebounding a lot faster than a 178cm guy

I tried hard to make it clear what I meant, enough that someone else has explained to you what I meant, so I've no idea where you get the idea I wanted to change that.

Also, i'm somewhat divided about the without penalty thing: Here is why:

Same old arguments about you have to lose something to gain something. That's fine if you feel training is balanced now. I think as Lemonshine has already pointed out in another thread, there are many reasons why training is not balanced in any form. The change when it was introduced made no sense whatsoever. I've never used it, its a complete waste of training. As an u21 coach I'd not only not recommend it, I'd say it shouldn't ever be considered.

The system is rather logic as it is now

You lose me right there.

the SF spot remains the hardest to train, instead of having everyone being able to play it

You need to play an SF out of position so often that a top SF will spend more time playing other positions than he does his own. Complete nonsense.

This should be a basketball game with some training elements. Not a training game where sometimes an accidental basketball game breaks out while people are concentrating on training.