BuzzerBeater Forums

Here is my personal thinking.

The new system isn't bad but very unfair. Why? Because a team must have lot of money to improve his training. When a manager take a team, he hasn't much money. In that order, he won't hire the optimal trainer and the old managers (they that have already played 3 seasons or more) have bigger arenas, a better roster and so.

The will hire the level 7 coach and will make a profitable step trading. But in this moment, other people - like me - can't do that even if we win matches, with this small arena and with less supporters we won't get that level. This means that always will exist a deep difference between us.

In summary... if we hire high level trainer we can't afford players or make a big arena. The economy will be very affected by this measure... Remember that the BB's reduced the incomes in teams...

Sorry for my english!

The second is that yes, the biggest teams have more opportunities. That's why unlike some other management games, in BuzzerBeater a team should never refuse promotion; when you promote, we try to immediately put you in a situation where you can be competitive with the other teams in your new division, and similarly when you demote, we try to prevent demoted teams from automatically being the best in their league.

That´s clear.

The first is that as I've said in the past, except for teams where slightly increasing the skills of their players is very, very valuable, a level 7 trainer probably loses them money, since that money would be better spent improving their players via the transfer market.

Can U explain me (or somebody else) this part? I suppose U refer to training programs. For example, one of my players is in the U21 NT... I don't have the money to hire a Lv 7 Trainer... My arena is just over the 6000 seats... and I have only 9 players... and three trainables guys... All because I want to promote... but, as I say before, the new system is no bad but U need money... lot of money...

I suppose that you can say goodbye to NT player from Colombian 3rd league, however you have still an option to be competitive even with level 5 coach, because is cheeper and have not so different affect. That means top teams will have better trainers, however only slightly better for much more money. It has an logic in this context.

However It still might means that best way with higher level than 5 is to train by one phase or by only some two phases like one on one or rebounding or so, however it also means their team's slower training boost, which sounds cool

Last edited by Iordanou at 10/30/2008 3:48:21 PM

The first is that as I've said in the past, except for teams where slightly increasing the skills of their players is very, very valuable, a level 7 trainer probably loses them money, since that money would be better spent improving their players via the transfer market.

Can U explain me (or somebody else) this part? I suppose U refer to training programs. For example, one of my players is in the U21 NT... I don't have the money to hire a Lv 7 Trainer... My arena is just over the 6000 seats... and I have only 9 players... and three trainables guys... All because I want to promote... but, as I say before, the new system is no bad but U need money... lot of money...

When you buy a level 7 trainer, the idea is that your players receive more training than they would with a level 5 trainer. However, this comes at a cost: first, sinking a pile of money to buy the trainer, and then paying a significantly higher wage every week.

The bottom line is that from the point of view of making money, it is probably more effective to buy a level 5 trainer, and keep the extra money that you would have paid for the level 7 trainer.

That's, of course, if you're a masochist and you want to pay double for a minimal percentage increase in training.

That's, of course, if you're a masochist and you want to pay double for a minimal percentage increase in training.

How much minimal would it actually be?

Perhaps, the difference between having 17 instead of 15 in an importante skill, in let's say, 3 to 5/6 players... how much money will you win at moment of the sell for that difference?

That's, of course, if you're a masochist and you want to pay double for a minimal percentage increase in training.

How much minimal would it actually be?

Perhaps, the difference between having 17 instead of 15 in an importante skill, in let's say, 3 to 5/6 players... how much money will you win at moment of the sell for that difference?

Obviously, I have no inside information on the exact detail.

A very rudimentary calculation, however, shows that if lev 7 is 10% additional training (and that's just an example, my guess would be that it might be way less), then it takes 20 weeks to have a gain of 1 extra skill level. Even if we're talking 5 players, it's hardly worth the money being paid for level 7 coaches right now.

You're making it sound way less if you say that it takes 20 weeks to gain an extra skill level. If you exclude sub-levels than yes it may seem like a waste to wait 20 weeks to get an extra skill-level. Over 5 players that's a pretty nice increase. But i must agree that the money paid for level 7 trainers are way overpriced. I think it's like what BB-charles said, that people tend to want the newest goodies first and they good money for it. Like a PS3 going for 2000 euro's when it came out... Crazy.

You're making it sound way less if you say that it takes 20 weeks to gain an extra skill level. If you exclude sub-levels than yes it may seem like a waste to wait 20 weeks to get an extra skill-level. Over 5 players that's a pretty nice increase. But i must agree that the money paid for level 7 trainers are way overpriced. I think it's like what BB-charles said, that people tend to want the newest goodies first and they good money for it. Like a PS3 going for 2000 euro's when it came out... Crazy.

Maybe it sounds like less than you'd like, but that's what it is. 10% extra training = 1 full skill level. Sub-levels don't have much to do with it.

And you should also have in mind that this is 1 level in 1 skill only. If you rotate properly, that means you will have to wait for 60 weeks to see a full extra level improvement in three skills, or so.

Pure math.

Last edited by GM-kozlodoev at 10/30/2008 6:54:02 PM

Actually it does. You're making it sound that it only matters when you get a pop in order for training to take affect in games. A player with a skill level of 8 isn't the same as a player with a skill level of 8.9. As if sub-levels don't count for training or in matches. Therefor i'm saying you're making it sound less than it seems.

And you should also have in mind that this is 1 level in 1 skill only. If you rotate properly, that means you will have to wait for 60 weeks to see a full extra level improvement in three skills, or so.

And what about the sub-skills? They don't get the extra training? If you train One-on-One, you'll see that jumpshot/handling/driving pops a lot. Sometimes every 2-3 weeks. On top of that you fail to account the training in sub-skills. No matter how small the increase in sub-skill, it's still an increase and shouldn't be neglected if you're gonna go "pure math." on me. So if we follow the training analysis chart, a sub-skill will train for about 7-8 weeks. Not sure if that's really accurate, but we'll use it. So a sub-skill will pop about 2 times longer than the main-skill. So by the time you popped once in main-skill, sub-skill should be about halfway. If you switch sub-skill to main-skill, you only need to train about 1-2 weeks to pop it again. And if the third skill you wanna train is a sub-skill of both the previous 2 skills, you only need to train it for let's say 25%. So you would have had about 6-7 weeks of training to increase 3 skills to 1+ level. You would probably reach the "extra" skill level much sooner than 60, maybe not divided properly between the 3 skills, but definitely in total. Too simplistic math though. If anyone wanna go pure math on this and throw in formulas or something, be my guest :P. I'm just trying to point out that sub-levels and sub-skills matter ;)

The main point of mine is that you're making it sound way less than it seems with your math. Mainly because you're not giving sub-levels credit and only count on full-skill levels, on top of that you don't take into account the sub-skills. Don't they get an 10% increase? Sub-levels and sub-skills are important and shouldn't be neglected.



Last edited by Legen...Riceball...Dary! at 10/30/2008 7:52:58 PM