BuzzerBeater Forums

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.

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'.

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'.

Great, you've got the sales pitch nailed. Now can you provide more details than it not being tied to minutes played and coaches don't have infinite time? If it's your idea, perhaps the onus should not be on me to expand my thoughts and imagine a new system, but instead on you to actually, you know, describe it with some sort of actual details.

This must have probably been proposed many times, but I think the change that could be made in the training regime without creating a different game would be that players should still need 48 minutes at a certain position in order to get full training, but you could set different trainings for each player who received minutes in that certain position.

I mean: if you want to improve your centers' passing, the best way would still be playing them 48min at PG, single training position. But if you managed to get 48 minutes in 3 of your players and 1 of them doesn't need passing, but OD, you could set 2 of them to train passing and 1 OD. Some penalty (10%?) could be implemented if players get different trainings. You should also only be allowed to set different trainings if none of the players that receive minutes are assigned by the engine to that specific position (you shouldn't be allowed to train 2 centers and a PG at PG position, but you could train 1 C, 1PF and 1SG).