BuzzerBeater Forums

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

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.

Actually it doesn't. If a coach 5 trains X levels in 20 games, a coach 7 will train you (X+1) levels. You can slap this on a stating level of 7.1 or 7.9 with no difference whatsoever.

You can call it 1 level in 20 games, 1/2 level in 10 games, or 1/4 level in 5 games -- that doesn't change anything, and I personally don't think that it makes it any worse or better than it is.

And what about the sub-skills?

I imagine you mean secondary skills. 7-8 weeks is not 2 times longer than 2-3 weeks. It's 3, maybe 4 times. My personal experience is that unless you're training some form of driving or jump shot, the secondary training effect is negligibly small. Well, 10% of negligibly small is even smaller.

And my main point is that it's an objective calculation -- a statement of fact. That's how much it is. If it sounds small to you, maybe it _is_ small.

An increase is an increase. Especially if you look at it this way.

Okay in 20 weeks you play, what, 90 games. With a level 7 trainer your player will perform better every game compared to a level 5 trainer. You don't think that adds some kind of value to your team or the outcome of the results? Especially if it affects 5 players of your 12 player line-up. How much do they perform better per 3 games? probably 10% on that particular skill you're training on the 5 players.

And yes, i do mean secondary skills. Thanks for clarifying that. Not that it was necessary, but still. Anyways 2-3 weeks is only for Rebounding and Driving probably. The other skills definitely require 3-4 weeks to get a pop. Which means around 2x or 2.5x if you will, doesn't change the fact that it trains secondary-skills. The training for secondary skills is definitely not negligible. The fact that you acknowledge the fact that some trainings do give a boost in secondary-skill means you can't generalize and say that secondary-skills are not increasing, like you did with your math. The beauty of % is that it is what it is. 10% of something negligible is still a 10% increase, no matter how small it is. In the end it's still a 10% increase. Is it worth it? That's another question.
And i knew you would use this argument as you used the same thing while we were arguing about The injuries with NT games, saying that the probability of getting an injury is 0.0002 and with the added NT game the probability would be 0.00001 or something, ignoring the fact that it's an increase of getting in injury. And making it sound nothing to exaggerate the probability to negligibly low.
What you think is right or a good example, doesn't mean it's a fact. And you shouldn't try to pass it as one to the community. Having an opinion is fine, presenting it as a fact is not. You got to be careful with that, especially when you're wearing the GM tag. Lot's of people will take you seriously, especially the newcomers.

And seriously....

Well, 10% of negligibly small is even smaller.

If you take 10% of anything, it's always smaller than what you took the 10% from... that sounds mathematically obvious.

Like i said, currently it isn't worth it to get level 7 trainer mainly because the insane money you have to pay in order to sign the trainer. Not because it's a smaller % increase.

That was my 2 cents.

Last edited by Legen...Riceball...Dary! at 10/30/2008 8:47:37 PM

Like i said, currently it isn't worth it to get level 7 trainer mainly because the insane money you have to pay in order to sign the trainer. Not because it's a smaller % increase.

No, it actually is a combination of the two: the level 7 coach is not worth it because the price you pay is too large for the small increase in training he might offer. You can't evaluate one independently from the other.

The way you formulated it sounds about right.

Like i said, currently it isn't worth it to get level 7 trainer mainly because the insane money you have to pay in order to sign the trainer. Not because it's a smaller % increase.

No, it actually is a combination of the two: the level 7 coach is not worth it because the price you pay is too large for the small increase in training he might offer. You can't evaluate one independently from the other.

You berate another user for asking what extra results a lvl 7 trainer is showing by responding 'How can it be possible to know when we've only been using the new staff system for 2 weeks' so how can you continue to argue whether they are worth it or not?

If you have 3 Hall of Famers with 80 points worth of collective stats and the taxes drop next season and the transfer market picks up - you potentially are sitting on a goldmine. $1.5mil can be made with 3-4 daytrades if you really want to raise the cash for a lvl7 trainer.

You have to evaluate the cost and potential increase in training speed relative to the trainees you have to use the trainer on. It sounds like you are evaluating it based on your own rationale and if the answer is that 'its too expensive' it is only because you dont believe there is enough value to make an impact on YOUR trainees...

with 35,000 managers and only a handful of lvl7 trainers being sold, yes some may have been auctioned off as shiny new toys but Im willing to bet that some have ended up in the hands of skilled managers that will end up getting the 1.5mil and increased wages back in training profits over and above those of us who prefer to play it safe and crow at those brave enough to splash out fees we cant/dont wish to try and justify.

I provided a simple calculation of what a level 7 coach actually gives you in terms of training based on a pure guess about his effect. Which particular part of it did you not like?

Also, I didn't actually berate anyone, and as you might have noticed we've figured the situation out since then.

From: GM-kozlodoev
To: bobans 381.781 in reply to 381.780
Date: 22/10/2008 08:57:43 any new data with the new staff system changes? what is the impact of lvl 7 trainer on training speed?

You don't really expect people to figure this out after 1 week of training with the new staff now, do you?


Here was your reaction to an innocent poster.

What I dont like is again you are basing your argument as you admit on your own guess.... so when you say it is not worth it.. this is based on your guess.. some others believe it or not have guessed differently (rightly or wrongly as we all know is not yet known although hinted at by the BB team who say that 1.5mil is over the odds)

Even if this figure is closer to 500k or 1mil - i have said that 2-3 successful day trades (or normal training / selling) will easily get you this and for a new team starting out they could effectively write off their first season and if they imagine starting even later then the money they generate could help them obtain one of these trainers which will surely bring them back above the growth curve by season 3/4....

Sure. Everyone is free to disagree and do the same calculations I did replacing 10% with whatever number they see fit and draw their own conclusions. Regretfully, most people are not interested in doing that.

If you think that a level 7 coach will train your players 20% or 50% faster, by all means, go dump all your savings in getting one. I picked the first number I thought of, which would have been on the high end of what I would have used, were I designing the system.

If you have a GM next to your name you should be careful in posting. Many people believe that you actually know something about the game and take what you post as fact. When, in fact, what you post is a guess but is presented with pompous bluster and condescension it only hurts the community.