BuzzerBeater Forums

Dont change the current training system... just add the ideas so managers xan switch to anything they are comfortable with or neered in a particular schedule.

(311554.17)

like the idea of having different Training Difficulties we can choose from like we have when setting our Line ups/Tactics:

Tactics Complexity:
Rookie -- Veteran -- AllStar

How about doing the same with the Training to those who would like to stick the old way... in the Long term or short term can do it... and also they can see the new/upcoming Training Setup pages too and they can test it in any week they want. Let's not change the old system but just add some alternatives and leave some space for future improvements.

- There are many managers who don't train players, and don't have a trainer. This change would bring more interest in training, which would inevitably cause an inflation of trainer prices -> bad for new users.
- The demand for draftees could potentially increase, which could make their price go higher -> bad for new users.
- Saying "Might change TL prices" is not enough. An effect of this change on TL prices would have to be carefully analyzed, and made sure it doesn't screw up the game.

I actually wrote a reply similar to yours a couple of hours ago. Then I realized, no, there might not be a point.

Yes, those are bound to happen. Knee jerk reaction to being able to compete and train at the same time. Everyone tries to get trainers and trainees. But the result? Prices of prospects will tank because everyone is training. In the end, they'll realize that buying prospects and hiring trainers are not worth it, because they can get the same player off the TL for cheaper, and they don't have to go through all the agony of training, and we'll be left with the same crop of trainers now. It should balance itself. Plus - price of draftees getting higher is very very good for new users, because most of them aren't good in the game, and don't know that their MVP/HOF "franchise player" will end up at just 80-90k and very far off from the cap if they train them. You can't convince them to sell if MVP players go for 200k or less. Then they'd be wasting a potential NT player because they actually think that they can hit the cap with their level 4 trainer. Imagine if it is 1m for a HoF (I remember times like these). I'm pretty sure they'd be more than happy to cash in. Plus, only MVPs and HOFs can see a hike in price. They probably can get their superstar/perennial All-stars for cheap and it will still be their franchise player.

Honestly, I love this suggestion. I drafted HOFs in 2 consecutive seasons and even though they're of the same position, it was hard to balance them both. Now I drafted a HoF and a MVP in the same draft, but both of them are of different positions. This suggestion is a dream come true to me. But the BB market is terrible now. It's grossly deflated because training has been getting easier and easier. You actually need to put in a lot of effort and care into building a player right, then realize he can't even go off for 5 million at peak market activity time. Do we need to make things easier than it already is? Soon the 25 million hoarding cap, which was put to prevent people from buying championships, might even be good enough to buy a B3 title because of how cheap players are on the TL.

Plan B but that special trainee have to be a home grown player.
Don't make it to easy!

Last edited by julo at 5/25/2023 2:15:41 AM

I voted for solution B, but I think that plan A could also work if "training court" system. So my solution would be that manager can pick three training slots for the week and decide exact players who team wants to train that week. However, if these players are not separately picked before the training update, the system will automatically choose players that have most minutes for that position. So it doesn't matter if you take all minutes for all your trainees in one game or in three games, but there's a limit how many players you can train overall.

Let's take an example.

Training slot 1:
Select training: OD for PG (1 player)
Select Player: Player A (+48 minutes)

Training slot 2:
Select training: 1vs1 for SF/PF (2 players)
Select Player: Player B (+48 minutes)
Select Player: Player C (+48 minutes)

Training slot 3:
Select training: 1vs1 for SF/PF (2 players)
Select Player: Player D (+48 minutes)
Select Player: Player F (37 minutes) (Player E had 42 minutes and was selected as a default, but I decided to train Player F instead and changed that manually)

So of course if I choose Player A for OD training, that player can't be used for Training Slots 2 and 3. Also if I wouldn't have made the change for Player F manually, system would have trained Player E who had more minutes for the position. However, I could have trained player A, B and C in week's first league game as I train different positions. Of course, if I would have trained OD for each training slot, it would require me to play all trained players for PG in separate games to get all the minutes.

Plan A sounds really great, but if casual managers who dont spend much time in BB find it difficult, plan B is also a really good idea !

My vote goes to "Plan B".
One player getting a different training is more then enough, and I like this idea.
The "Plan A" is a big NO for me. That would be too much.

That's a great point, especially the TL price part. Our team bought earlier this season a player who was 90% ready and paid 3 million for the player. He fit my training plan just fine so I can now train him as a finished player, but if there would be any option to have different training system for different players, I would have never bought that player but I would have bought a 18 yo prospect and built that player instead because it's cheaper. So this might have massive effect for the TL prices as we would have more potential capped players in TL and there wouldn't be any reason to buy 75-90% ready players unless those were bargains.

I don't know if it will lower the TL prices but the number of players in sale will clearly collapse...
Why would you buy new players while you can train 3 different positions at the same time and benefit from the huge merchandising boost that represent homegrown players ?

I love plan A. If it wouldn't work we can go with plan B.

Again some experienced managers don't see advantages and are little affraid of changes.
They say that current system is challenging. They also say that new system (let's say plan A) will be to hard for new users.
So cuurent challanging training is ok for newbies and not that hard but plan A will be to much?
Ridiculous.

There was one argument about coaches(not enough number of them at the market/salaries).
Justin can solve it in one day by changing salaries and/or adding numbers of coaches.

You worry about market prices etc -you can train draft players, don't need to buy.
Not every team needs 5x HoFs or 5x MVPs in starting 5.

Plan A(or B ) will solve one problem which I see with training:
You train 1vs1 SF/PF than JS than IS ID etc. You have PG or SF or C let's say 25yo without passing or rebounds.

With new system you can quicker get rid of holes - skills which we train in the end.

There is one topic which was not mentioned:
It will be harder to scout opponent lineup(starting 5etc) due to new training plans.