BuzzerBeater Forums

Maybe you forgot to add the merchandise bonus of the trainee (especially when training for NT). Maybe that would make training more reasonable. I guess I am one of the people who are resistant to change despite the fact that increasing the training speed will benefit me.

Edit: I would like to compare similar strength teams with team 1 training players while team 2 not training players.

Team 1 will have higher merchandise especially if the trainees are draftees. Additionally, team 1 will be stronger than team 2 as the season goes on because of training. This may help team 1 win more games which leads to a higher income in attendance.

However, if your plan is only to train players to sell them and not about winning games, then I agree that training is not profitable.

Last edited by Greedy at 08/21/2015 12:55:00

Yes it would be beneficial because. compared to the average draftee and to the garbage you get when you're assigned a team, trained players would be better than trained players are today thanks to (slightly) faster pops.

Additionally I'm not sure why something like 'loyalty' and 'alma mater/mother club' have never been implemented. It stands to reason that if the players you drafted and raised had a performance boost compared to those you buy on the transfer list, people would have an extra incentive to invest in the draft and in training their own guys. It also stands to reason that a bonus to players' performance the longer a player has been with a team would increase the appeal of long term commitments without having to resort to significant GS penalties after a sale and sale taxes.

Small performance boosts like that have no impact whatsoever on the GE so they should be fairly easy to implement.

Last edited by Lemonshine at 08/21/2015 18:27:21

For me it is not too slow or too popular. The problem lies more on the majority of the trainers itself.

1. A lot of them/us, do not know or take to consideration the small difference of the increase in pops in each level of trainer. Maybe some of them are not that informed about this so they just bid and bid and bid until they get the trainer that they want believing that the market's value is in par to the effect of the trainer.
2. A lot of them are still not well verse about the importance of secondaries so a lot of players that are being trained right now are still those one/two tricks ponies. And LI is still very popular right now that I believe a lot of the guards that are being trained as well as the bigmens are LI players.
3. Lastly, we do not have a lot of GM that trains actually. Because if we have, the market price should have been lower because Supplies will be higher than the Demands.

With this, I believe that RIGHT training is profitable. And if we reverse those issues that I pointed out, the market should become a more efficient and cheaper one.

Yeah the training is very slow and it is only possible to do one position training with the way that the training system works. If you're doing more than one position training, its WAY TOO SLOW. A way to make training more profitable AND lower the market prices is by making multiple position training better.

A way to make training more profitable AND lower the market prices is by making multiple position training better.

A way to make training more profitable AND more logical AND more available to everybody, thus raising competition at every level is by training players, not "positions."

Here we agree. But multiple position training might be another option.

For example they could do away with single position, making multiple position the base and have it train at single speed. Sometimes if you can't win the war you got to go for a few battles.

You still retain every bit of the illogicality. You're still training "positions" instead of players. Absurd. We only have it because that's what is in Hattrick, where by the way it is equally absurd.

Last edited by Mike Franks at 08/22/2015 01:56:28