BuzzerBeater Forums

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

Mr. Hrudey, thank you for your comments about the roots of the problem. I am aware that the training system in Hattrick has the same illogical elements. I was afraid that maybe some other games have logical, simple training systems copyrighted, and all that was left was what we and Hattrick are stuck with. Actually, I am glad to hear that that may NOT be the problem, and that maybe a simple, logical training system can still be implemented in BB without violating copyrights.

I agree with you that a training system that simply causes the rich to get richer is not a step forward. There is no model that I "seem to be proposing" at this time because I have only voiced observations of the specific concrete problems in our current training system. I have not yet made any suggestions as to a possible solution except that it should be a logical and simple system in which players, not positions, are trained. Now I would add that it should not cause a "strong get stronger" effect unnecessarily. Nor should it cause a "poor get richer" effect unnecessarily, of course. Training would have to have some controls; balance rather than sacrifice is a constructive way to think about the limitations that should apply.

No need for your doomsday characterization of any solution that no one has even put forward yet. Thank you.

I must say I do agree with Mike Franks for once.

I agree with you that a training system that simply causes the rich to get richer is not a step forward. There is no model that I "seem to be proposing" at this time because I have only voiced observations of the specific concrete problems in our current training system. I have not yet made any suggestions as to a possible solution except that it should be a logical and simple system in which players, not positions, are trained. Now I would add that it should not cause a "strong get stronger" effect unnecessarily. Nor should it cause a "poor get richer" effect unnecessarily, of course. Training would have to have some controls; balance rather than sacrifice is a constructive way to think about the limitations that should apply.

No need for your doomsday characterization of any solution that no one has even put forward yet. Thank you.

I should have said "seem to be advocating for" rather than proposing, and I'll ignore the whole paragraph sidetrack commentary about copyrights because I know it should have made me laugh and might have if I read it at another time.

The "players not positions" idea has been put forward before, where you pick three players (for example) and as long as they get minutes, they get full training at whatever training regimen selected. That is less bad than not requiring any training at all, for example, but it also means that the players who currently require special effort to make will now be available for anyone to make without making the effort. Depending on the minute rules, it could even be that a team play all three players in one thrown game and then play full competitive lineups in their other two. Since you're not making a proposal, though, and since you seem to agree that there needs to be consideration about having meaningful choices rather than simply just being logical, there's no point in digging further into it yet.

Depending on the minute rules, it could even be that a team play all three players in one thrown game and then play full competitive lineups in their other two.

Uhm could it be that you "seem to be advocating" that training 3 players out of position would be "making the effort" because it requires managers to throw more games than 1? What kind of game pushes a player to lose more in order to succeed/have fun? I see a lot of people complaining about tanking, but then the same people forget that in order to train you have to throw games or field very subpar lineups.
Not only that, but with the current system, you cannot compete in more games than with the system you described because you train only one regime per week (which means when you train out of position the lineups for the entire week are affected). If tanking is bad, people throwing games is even worse, especially if you get the short stick (you get a tough game and a direct competitor gets a blowout win): I can't see more thrown competitive games with the change you described.

players who currently require special effort to make will now be available for anyone to make without making the effort

I don't see many arguments from you either, Hrudey, except this one here, which does twist other people's opinions. I'm sure nobody, here or elsewhere, even Mike Franks, has ever advocated that we should be able to make no effort as you imply with your statement. Somewhat less effort yes (i.e. you still have to play guards at C and bigs at PG, but you can do 2 at the same time, maybe in the scrimmage), more game balance yes (teams playing closer to their real value and with less variability over time).
Let's be realistic, the regime you described would make much more sense without taking away much for anybody. However, it's also more difficult to code and seeing it took seasons to fix simpler issues like blank lineups, delays in training, no box scores available for hours and hours after games, I don't think this can be realistically implemented within a reasonable timeframe.

Last edited by Lemonshine at 1/8/2015 7:41:25 AM