BuzzerBeater Forums

Let's say 60% to what you want to train, 20% randomly given for free elsewhere and 20% lost. .

Even trying to make the best of a bad situation, you get things like this. It's like saying NBA coaches don't know what they're doing 20% of the time and aren't doing anything 20% of the time. Even a Div. 2 college coach would get fired if he were that bad.

Better to correct the bad situation, imo. When it could be fixed so simply and logically, is there any reason to cling so tightly to the illogical, confusing, complex system we have now other than the fact that some guys have sort of figured it out and they want to keep their advantage over everyone else?

Well let's put option d) for you then:

d) Remove single weekly regime, remove minute requirement, remove position requirement, remove number of trainees trainable per week requirement. Am I forgetting anything? You choose to train however many trainee as you want, you can train them in any regime you want (1 per trainee per week), without minute or position requirement.

Voila.

Your attempts to argue seem to be defeating your attempts to read. No one said any of the bolded stuff except you.

You also forget that a trainer can do only so much, the greatest limitation of all, but a logical one. There is simply no need for the contrived limitations currently befuddling the training process.

You argue that your system would be more logical based on the NBA ...

No, I observe that a system can be put it place that is logical based on simple, everyday reality. The NBA is just one example. Think major college ball, think high school ball, any level of ball.

In order to mimick reality you would train when you don't have a game and you gain experience when you play ...

Bingo! Perfect! I wish I had said that. BB already has the "gain experience when you play" part.

You have to throw a game for optimal training? Completely illogical and unnecessary. No wonder newbies so often do not stick around.

I accept the argument from Hrudey, because I'm honest enough to admit I would likely do it under b) or c)

Absolutely, I totally agree. Everybody would do it under the current system. That's one thing about the current system that is so illogical and contrived.

Last edited by Mike Franks at 1/27/2015 3:02:50 PM

Absolutely, I totally agree. Everybody would do it under the current system. That's one thing about the current system that is so illogical and contrived.

You can't do it now, you could under my option b) or c), which is what Hrudey was arguing. I think b) could be ok if you can prevent that.

At the risk of causing people to see my name even more frequently, I'm going to just add a few thoughts quickly with my opinions, now that I'm finally starting to get over last season.

I think my biggest concerns are that I don't want it a training system that allows teams to be completely competitive at full strength plus train top-tier talents at full speed with no detriment whatever. The whole out of position mechanic is one method of achieving that goal that is pretty effective, but not the only or even perhaps the best one. I also don't want the "sacrifice" between the competition mode and training mode to be something that can be inconsequential (like throwing one game for full training benefits for three players).

Please note that I'm not proposing the changes, nor do my opinions matter more than any of the other users in the game, but one idea I've had regarding the situation is that there may be another way to get the tradeoff that might make the scenario more interesting for everyone and for a bonus point, maybe even address other lingering complaints about training.

So, for hypothetical purposes (and I haven't analyzed this in depth or thought too deeply about it, so flaws may well be abundant), let's look at a system where minutes are not the primary input for training. Some bullet points, as I'm thinking of this on the fly:
-- no minutes requirement. To receive training, a player must dress as a starter or backup for a competitive (non-scrimmage) game.
-- no position requirement. Players can train any skill regardless of where they qualified at.
-- a number of players up to the normal maximum trainable for a training type can be selected for training (3 for one-position, 6 for two position, 9 for three position)
-- for every player under the maximum trainable selected, you get a small boost to training speed for having the coaches less burdened (something like 5% for two players for single position training, 10% for one, and something scaled similarly for two and three positions)
-- Each week, you will select a percentage of training to go towards FT , towards skill training, stamina and game shape, with a minimum of 10% maybe in each of the four categories.

That eliminates the whole 0.00% FT baseline that people dislike, the GS training, and provides a meaningful sacrifice to full-speed training without requiring completely thrown games. It would require redoing the GS system almost entirely (maybe like HT's "background form") and it needs to still be that good minute management with full training leads to better GS than focusing on GS training but not managing minutes. GS needs to vary more anyway. It's still prone to the "throw one game, train 'em all" but at least in that scenario if you're doing full training, you're sacrificing GS as well.

Of course, weeks with no competitive games (5th place teams) will need to be able to train as well, so maybe the competitive game thing may not be as important, or maybe there should just be a slight bonus when the trainee does play a competitive game and more of a bonus when they play more than X minutes in a meaningful game.