BuzzerBeater Forums

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.