BuzzerBeater Forums

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?

This feels rushed. Pretty drastic changes proposed here for a game that is really well balanced. I prefer smaller changes and in stages so the economy as well as the user base are able to align and shift in a methodical manner.

I see Plan A seems to have significant support. I voted no change after some serious thought, would hope any owner that voted for plan A applied some similar thought. Not saying I am right and they are wrong, just really need to weigh all the ramifications that will come with a change like this. Once done, it can’t be undone.