BuzzerBeater Forums

With training diversity, managers wouldn't be training three starting players, but FOUR!

For example, experienced managers would find a way to train 2 great shot blockers with high OD/PA, and 2 NT-level guards/forwards.

During the first 4-5 seasons, guards/forwards would only receive 2 position training (1vs1/JS for SF/PF & RB), while bigs would get 1 position training on OD/PA/ID/SB. Afterwards, you would switch guards to 1 position training (IS/OD/ID/JR/PA), while centers would get 2 position training (1vs1/JS for PG/SG & RB).

With great HOF guards and solid MVP bigs, you would end up with 155-160+ guards/forwards, & 140+ shot blockers.

Once people figure it out, everyone would start to train at least 4 players. It would either be 4 starters like in the example above, or 2 starters, and 2 high-value low-salary substitutes, that are often more expensive than the starters.

I have been following your homegrown journey and I have to say that it's been very interesting and exciting for me, even if your team is not mine. Thank you for your input, I want to complement your reply with my opinion, regarding homegrown teams.

I will not speak about Plan A or Plan B now, I want to give an overview about how this change will impact homegrown teams, and possibly micronations.

- Homegrown teams

In the last seasons, the number of homegrown teams and interest in homegrowing (not that type), has been increasing from coaches. Merchandise updates and details were revealed on how homegrown players are more profitable for teams compared to local players (same country) or foreigners, especially when these homegrown players are included in the NT (u21 or Senior)

This change would allow a much needed relief for teams to go the homegrown rate, it would allow teams to draft players in multiple seasons and actually ENABLE them to be trained PROPERLY.

With either of these changes you would be able to train your drafted players in different seasons, for their respective best potential positions.

Let's say you drafted a MVP 190cm (6'2) player, this season, and next season you draft a 206cm (6'7) HOF.

And both of them are excellent players. Now you have to make a choice. Either you sacrifice the guard or the big player. You cannot choose to develop both. And this is horrible for coaches in my honest opinion, because drafting your own player and developing him is an exciting feeling and it's incredibly fun, for many coaches it's one of the reasons they play this game, because of the draft aspect of the game.

I don't think you should force a player to sacrifice one or another draftee, first because it's demotivating, second because the chances of getting high potential players in draft that are actually trainable is not that high, thid because of the investment in the draft points which can cost quite a bit of $ and time.

So, coupling this change with the merchandise boost, it would create a lot more homegrown teams in the long run, incentivize training, and make the game more fun.


Micronations

I truly believe this would enable micronations to become a lot more competitive, and in the long run to strengthen micronations Senior NT's.

1. It would allow managers of micronations to buy/draft players in different seasons and give them proper full development according to their best skillset and height.

Coaches from the 'Nations Of' would be able to properly pick and develop the best trainees that are drafted by themselves or appear in the Transfer List in different seasons, since the availability of good trainees is very limited for micronations, this would add more flexibility for these coaches, and increase the quality and competitiveness of players from the Micronations and their respective u21's and NT's.

In order to prevent this I suggest 'Plan B', in Plan B you will be able to train ONE, and only ONE player differently from the rest. You are not allowed to train two players differently at the same time.

Double position training like 1v1F, or Rebounding would be restricted to just one position in the choice of this training.

Example :

2 guards are being trained at PG (OD)

1 player is going to be trained differently, in 1v1F, 1v1F would only enable either the SF or PF position to be trained, not both.

Same for REB, only 1 player that played in C or PF position can be chosen for the 'Special' training.

Or you can change it this way.

You can train a player differently in 1v1F, but this 'Special' training only allows you to train player in SF position, instead of SF/PF.

Same for Rebounding, you can only train a player in C position instead of C/PF.

In my opinion it's extremely important to prevent 4 players to be trained at the same time. I believe that with community input we can reach a consensus and structure this idea correctly.

Last edited by sergio at 5/25/2023 8:09:25 AM

Plan A for sure

Plan A for sure

I voted for neither, the continuity of the game would be at risk given the training system currently in place. If you pointed a gun to my head and told me to choose one, I would guess B, but not by much.

Playing the game for a long time, it forced myself and various other owners to decide what to do, and how to effectively balance training with league/cup committments. Do I play my Center at guard because I need to get his passing up? Do I go buy an already finished product from the TL? Buying a finished product has its trade offs (more money, harder to find, BUT already completed product ready to compete) However training a player also has similar trade offs (competitiveness, takes awhile to see the fruits of your labor, BUT you get to make the player specifically to your liking)

Implementing this system would adversely impact the "trade off" element the game has built its foundation on. What's stopping me from tanking for about 6-7 seasons, build a PG, an SF, and a C, and then I will have bank as I compete back up to top level leagues with 150+ TSP freaks? This system would become very lucrative for the seasoned veterans of the game, and you will start to see everyone utilize the same strategy. Which means in about 10 seasons after the changes, you will see every single team made up of exactly the same players.

This is what makes the game stale. This is why we've tried to deviate from the "Look Inside" tactic meta with boosting up offenses in the GE like Motion and RnG, for instance.

I don't know about you guys but I don't like stale. I like flavor. My one suggestion to aid in Plan A would be to allow an extra training slot, however at a decreased efficiency rate. For this practice, I would say lets use 85%. If I were to train a top level player from age 18-21, he would be around 110 TSP. 85% of that would be around 93 TSP. Still a very formiddable player, but definitely a step below the top guy. In real life coaches definitely take preferences in player development, they cannot 100% invest in multiple players at once. Which I why I suggest a decreased efficiency for the training. This would help in building a diverse set of players, but wouldn't necessarily break the game.

One thing I didn't find in PRO vs CONS is the effect on trainee.
I think both option will produce stronger/better players than now.
(now you are often forced to choose from the need of one trainee sacrifying the others, so you get the wage to big or the growth not equilibrated)
I see it as a CON, because IMHO there are already too much good players in BB.
IMHO, someone can see it as a PRO!

Another thing you mentioned in CONS is "Might change TL prices".
I think the point could be worst. Many manager will be able to avoid the need for selling/buying in the market. And there will be a desertification of good prospect for sale. Once you get that player you won't ever need to change your plans!
This in not necessarely a CON, but it lead to a lower engagement (lower views/login for BB).

PS: I'm still in doubt and didn't vote!

I like the idea of making training more flexible, not to make it too easy as plan A.

I would modify slightly plan B as follow:
- training 1 that applies to Saturday and Tuesday games
- training 2 fot Thursday game

what do you think?