BuzzerBeater Forums

Hey,

So your math is right and technically you would receive more training by doing this overall. However, nobody uses this training method for a very good reason. Usually, when people get trainees, they get them for a specific purpose (train for NT, make D1, make money, etc). So let's run through some popular options for methods:

NT: A player can't make the national team or U21 receiving only 30% training, so this one is obviously out of the way.

D1: Even if you trained your whole roster at 30%, you'd only reach the skill level of a U21 team at age 27. 10 years x .30 = 3 years of 100% training. A good U21 team is probably D3/D2 in the USA. So D1 is out of the question.

Make Money: While you do get more training, you end up with a bunch of players who aren't that well trained for their age. So you can't really make much money from this method since the players won't be good and young at the same time.

Not to mention that having 9 trainees on a roster is ridiculous and hard to be competitive while doing so...

TLDR: Training at 100% for trainees is the best/most effective method. Keeps trainee size manageable, a potential for NT, D1, and profit

I'm not planning to use it a lot, but i have used it around 20% to 30% of the time. I'm in division 4, so my competition is minimal. I have 16 players with salaries ranging from $5, 000 to $15,000 and my top 10 core have salaries between $9,000 and $15,000, and when i match up to teams that have 2 to 5 players with salaries in the $20,000 to $40,000 range and the rest around $2,00 to $8,000, i usually clean their clock, which leads me to believe that - to an extent - balanced teams with depth will beat out teams with just a few superstars. Now i have no idea whether that applies to teams in better divisions or not.

Upper divisions are more about strategy and game planning than salaries. Lower divisions are more about salaries. When you get higher up the difference in salary becomes lower so the overall impact of lineups and GDP becomes much greater. Whereas if a team is doubling your salary down in D4... you aren't winning no matter the GDP. Balanced/Non-balanced rosters are really up to you. Bigs are more expensive than guards though, so keep that in mind.

Past salary it's also Game Shape, if a guy is a 40k salary at 4 GS and another guy is 10k salary at 9 GS the 10k guy will likely perform better. It's to avoid teams stacking and just idling there.

Yeah...i'm always checking my (and opposing) teams DMI when figuring out my lineup.There seems to be a strong correlation between game shape and DMI.

It's more than a strong correlation, DMI = Game Shape x Salary. 9 GS is always constant for the number behind it, the rest are a range ex (8.0 - 8.9).

It's more than a strong correlation, DMI = Game Shape x Salary.

Have you ever tried to verify it on any player? According to it, my player Kopal has GS 16,7. Or salary 148 000. Neither is true.

(actual numbers are DMI: 1 335 900, salary: 80 140, GS: 9)

Last edited by NO-15 (Слава Україні!) at 6/10/2018 5:34:41 AM

It's not a flat formula like that, it comes from here:

http://www.buzzerbeater.com/community/forum/read.aspx?thr...

Most of Josef Ka's research from back in the day still holds true, or has a level of truth to it.

Last edited by Apex at 6/10/2018 12:18:46 PM