BuzzerBeater Forums

Wow, wasting a full season to fix one players shortcoming looks so exciting, now that I heard the "its a game, fix it yourself"-explanation the 357th-time.

Thank you so much!

Last edited by Knecht at 1/2/2015 11:53:26 AM

Wow, wasting a full season to fix one players shortcoming looks so exciting, now that I heard the "its a game, fix it yourself"-explanation the 357th-time.

Thank you so much!

Think how everyone else feels hearing the same complaint 357 times.

Wow, wasting a full season to fix one players shortcoming looks so exciting, now that I heard the "its a game, fix it yourself"-explanation the 357th-time.

Thank you so much!

Any time! Maybe someday if you bring this up enough it'll happen, and then you'll only have 9 skills remaining to request to be improved for you without having to train them, and then the game will be the most realistic simulation of basketball ever!

Last edited by GM-hrudey at 1/2/2015 1:32:55 PM

Wow, wasting a full season to fix one players shortcoming looks so exciting, now that I heard the "its a game, fix it yourself"-explanation the 357th-time.

Thank you so much!

Think how everyone else feels hearing the same complaint 357 times.

Well, not everyone else. For example, I don't think the BB's have heard any complaints about training 357 times ... or 35.7 times ... or even 3.57 times. If they had, some of the simple fixes would be in evidence.

Or they disagree with those. I remember reading you disagreeing with ideas, the same thing happens for them.

Don't you think they are worth commenting upon by the BB's? Don't you think the level of illogicality and disapproval of training deserves some response? Don't you think they might enter into the discussion with an eye toward improving perhaps the weakest part of the game? I do.

You find training illogical, comparing to IRL, it is, but in game it is good imho.

1. In this game, players are not trained ("positions" are). A "position" is an abstract concept. IRL and in most games, players are trained. There is no need whatsoever to have to train "positions" in this game.
2. Players who don't play in games don't get trained. That is illogical for both RL and the game.

You can say those things don't bother you, and I'll accept that. But that doesn't make them logical; they aren't.

Lack of communication and obligation of changing training are two different things.

There we are in complete agreement.

I would find a game where you can chose to not use players and still train them very odd.

Why would it be "odd" to duplicate RL?

In a game design view I personally think that the way things work here is good.
Is it realistic? Not at all. But how would you go about creating a realistic training mechanism?

Thank you for asking. I have been thinking about that, and may write something up.

You find training illogical, comparing to IRL, it is, but in game it is good imho.

1. In this game, players are not trained ("positions" are). A "position" is an abstract concept. IRL and in most games, players are trained. There is no need whatsoever to have to train "positions" in this game.
2. Players who don't play in games don't get trained. That is illogical for both RL and the game.

You can say those things don't bother you, and I'll accept that. But that doesn't make them logical; they aren't.

Part of the root cause is that BB-Charles was very active in Hattrick before BB came, so some of the basic structures (skills from 0-20, training by position and requiring that players played in that position, enthusiasm and game shape, etc) are very closely patterned after the way they were implemented in HT.

On the second issue, while on a pure logical level it doesn't make sense, there is a very good reason for it in terms of game balance. As it stands, to create very good players with training, one is required to sacrifice somewhat by playing these players in league/cup games when they are not yet ready. At higher levels, especially, there is a significant downside to doing so, and one is therefore left with the choice of competing or training. The results of this are that, over time, the teams become older and older and eventually can no longer be sustained, opening up room for advancement for younger teams. Meanwhile, lower level teams have the option to create very nice players that they can either use for themselves as they progress or sell to other managers for very nice profits.

If the game were to go to the model you seem to be proposing, any thoughts of having to sacrifice simply disappear. The best teams would have the best players, and then they'd be able to train the best trainees as well since it doesn't hamper them in any way. The transfer market would end up devolving so that newly drafted high potential guys would be even more insanely priced than now and pretty much everyone else would be nearly worthless since everyone would be developing three players themselves.


Last edited by GM-hrudey at 1/4/2015 8:54:51 AM