BuzzerBeater Forums

I think you did partially misunderstand. The problem is when prices rise not because of changes in the market, but changes in rules. Price changes are not up to the market if you change the rules in order to affect price formation.

And if the most important supporter of this ideas is the person in charge of making the changes and there is nobody to vet or help him in taking decisions, then we have a problem. At least now fans of making changes to push prices up cannot claim that actively encouraging higher prices is going to make users happier or indifferent, as people clearly voted that they would prefer the current situation to a situation where prices are higher.

If then prices increase because of the natural evolution of the game, that's life, but that's beyond the point of this thread (or better you could argue that based on this poll, things we can control should be used to keep prices stable).

Last edited by Lemonshine at 6/18/2015 8:47:11 AM

The average teams, not being able to get better by buying players, will train their own players.

That is your wish, but by no means is it necessarily true for the "average" manager. It could be true for managers that are a little bit masochistic, but not for the majority of managers the way training currently works. The huge expense, the illogical structure and slow pace of training will lead most "average" managers to avoid training at all costs. No one likes to beat his head against a brick wall, except of course a masochist.

They are making training the essential centerpiece of the game without reforming it, just forcing it upon us. That will just force a lot of managers out the door.

Training can be a challenge, to be sure, but not remotely an insurmountable (or head-beating-against-wall) one.
And then, as a result, you get all these customized players that you built specifically for your team.
For me, that's one of the best parts of the game.

Another amazing thing to me about BB is that every single player that isn't a scrub has been trained up an intentional way by another manager, or collection of managers, from the thousands of teams all across the world over the seasons. Some kid in North Dakota could draft a player, train up his ID, then sell him to a guy in Malaysia, who builds up his Passing, and then sells him to a lady in Germany, who trains him on OD, and then a professor from Iceland picks the player up off the transfer list, and rounds him out with JS, ID, and RB.

Seriously, it would make a cool documentary.

But more to the point, if it is the case that the more and more managers aren't training, then I'm glad, because I always incorporate it into my team and that will give me an edge. If you are wrong, and it is not case, I'm still glad, because then there will be more high quality players on the transfer list to choose from.

every single player that isn't a scrub has been trained up an intentional way by another manager

Well you can't customise that much since all the guys you train get the same exact training. Building a great team only with personally trained players is nearly impossible, because you get 2-3 starters every 5-6 seasons and they all look the same. Even if you mix it up (i.e. start with a big men out of position, then get 1 guard/1 SF/the big man in inside training, finish the big man, move to the remaining 2 guys to outside training and get a new big man to train out of position) it is next to impossible to build players the way you want. Maybe you can get 5 homegrown starters in 8-9 seasons rather than 10-12 but they will be less customised, although at least they will have more varied skillsets.

So I think that if training is the focus going forward you need to allow people to train different kind of players simultaneously and you need to make it easier/more rewarding to train lower potential players, because, even if that's a misconception, lower potential players don't get enough love.

Last edited by Lemonshine at 6/19/2015 6:10:51 AM

I actually agree with Lemon here. I don't think training is under powered and really enjoy that aspect of the game, even though it is pretty slow. (I've had my main trainee for almost 3 seasons and 8 or so months is a pretty long time in real life

But one thing training is not is flexible. Its very difficult to train a team to play how you want it to, since you can only really focus on one or two positions at a time and one or two skills a week. I don't really mind it but it is impossible to shape an entire team through through training.

So I think that if training is the focus going forward you need to allow people to train different kind of players simultaneously and you need to make it easier/more rewarding to train lower potential players, because, even if that's a misconception, lower potential players don't get enough love.

Tbh. potential less than All-Star is utter trash and its not worthwhile training those guys (one could make an argument for "Star"-SFs...). To me low-potential players are just junk data and could be removed from the game.

yeah I mean Star-Perennial All Star when I talk about 'lower' potential. I agree that starter is already quite low potential even for D4 teams. Perhaps make the difference a bit smaller between categories, in particular at lower levels?

Besides there are also illogical things like 19yo Announcers with high TSP who are born way beyond their cap limit.

So I think that if training is the focus going forward you need to allow people to train different kind of players simultaneously and you need to make it easier/more rewarding to train lower potential players, because, even if that's a misconception, lower potential players don't get enough love.

Too logical.

Better that they continue to limit your ability to train to just one kind of player and to just one kind of skill, because that's how real basketball teams work, eh? No coach in his right mind would consider training all his players in the skills that they need.

(Sarcasm font off).

Now, there has been an interesting proposition around training this week in the Suggestions forum, it would have been nice to see you give your insight on it.

Sure ... which thread are you referring to?