BuzzerBeater Forums

Well there are like a dozen specific suggestions floating around... And maybe a dozen changes happened based on ideas that were put out there by me, but of course you and your friends won't confirm that.

We'll see how the app will work - if I understand correctly thats sthg you are working on. Good news.

Well you did not get my point, but I wont elaborate further. Any change is a good change, so lets hope we see some in the near future - even if that means we get some half hearted compromises as we are used to.

...inflation is the best way to motivate training (as I've said so many times).

I sincerely hope you are open minded about this, because no matter what inflation does for training, it is wrecking the basketball game. And IF you are open minded, then consider which is better for competition and Buzzerbeater overall:

(1) training designed solely for the top teams, with farm teams creating top players to subsequently benefit NT's and Div 1, then going bot once their harvest of young players is safely in the barn, or

(2) training so logical and intuitive that even new managers understand it, training is accomplished in all divisions, and all 20,000 managers train up their players (instead of a few hundred as it is now).

Thank you.

OK, they weren't cherry picked, my mistake. Does that mean you need to go on a rampage? I too am ticked off if you put words in my mouth ("oh that:s cherry picking you are crazy"). Obviously, this kind of discourse leads to nothing but a long argument, which isn't constructive at all. Why am I saying this? Because of your tone. Read my post and then read yours, see which one is angry. The angry person here is preventing us from moving on by making it really hard to see arguments rather than fight.

I'm human after all, for better of for worse, but I do admit my mistakes and I do not intentionally provoke.

Also, this does not mean that some other points I aren't correct. Buying players from teams that went bot does not prove that the teams were farms. Saying that teams without homegrown players are using farms is just a logical mistake, there is no definite correlation between the two statements. How do I know this? Because this is how this game works. You train, then sell, then buy, shift players left and right until you get what you need, it's called team improvement and it's a process every team goes through. This is normal - especially for the best teams in game - it is expected for them to have a lot of trading.

As for your suggestions about training; they are mostly imbalanced and unfair towards the lower division levels (1,2,4,5). They would make top teams untouchable. Number three is not a suggestion, but a statement. The salary formula can only be tweaked slowly, not completely changed all at once, as it would bring on riots. The FA policy is the odd one out here, since it is something we are considering at the moment (at least, in part).

Finding good ideas that have no downsides is hard. We have to consider all aspects before implementation. So you see, there's no easy way to make training more realistic. The question is here if we really need to make it more realistic, since it will never fully simulate real life, that's just impossible. I believe we have here a system that works - it is challenging and hard, yet simple and fair. It helps lower div players train more easily than top div teams and that is something we like.

Inflation needs to be controlled and stopped at one point, of course. A more precise term would be high TL prices. Since we have a different understanding of what high prices do for training, there is little we can agree on going further (I believe high prices motivate training and help lower div teams, as they have the ability to use training more, however you somehow believe the opposite). And yes, this means that I disagree with (1) being the current situation. (2) is wishful thinking. It's not a specific solution with all the pros and cons considered. It's just an abstract idea that is possibly even harmful to the game balance.

Removing the trade off aspect of training rewards top teams and promotes the status quo. It's a good thing to force top teams abandon training in order to be more competitive - this means that lower teams that do train can catch up to them. Otherwise, we wouldn't have any vertical movement between divisions.

Removing the trade off aspect of training rewards top teams and promotes the status quo. It's a good thing to force top teams abandon training in order to be more competitive - this means that lower teams that do train can catch up to them. Otherwise, we wouldn't have any vertical movement between divisions.

In other words, if the teams at the top don't face erosive forces and can improve at the same level as those in lower levels, there's no chance of bridging the gap.

I doubt that we have strong vertical movement between divisions...

...any movement seems to be the result of botification...

...please prove me wrong.