BuzzerBeater Forums

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.

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.

Agreed. A manager should have to think and work for results.

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).

... which describes the current system to a "T".

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.

Excellent steps in the right direction.
1. It gets rid of minutes and position requirements, both of which have neither a logical connection nor RL connection to training.
2. The number of players trained is still limited.
3. It gives important recognition to the need for more than one type of training per week.

About the only flaw is "To receive training, a player must dress as a starter or backup for a competitive (non-scrimmage) game." There is no logic to that.

Overall, a terrific step toward a sane training system. (y)

I've no intention of training with a penalty under the present conditions. So for me the change is no change at all.

That's what's up.

Agreed. A manager should have to think and work for results.

If I go by this standard, given the choice, I'd choose the current system over yours or hrudey's 100 times out of 100.

If I was opposing any change, as I'm sure others are, I'd say both of you just want to make it much easier for managers, especially those in higher level leagues, by removing part of the complexity of the game.

If you actually understood either his suggestion or mine, you would see we both prefer to retain the challenge of training, possibly even make it harder but clearer. Of course, if you don't understand what either of us are suggesting, you can't see a thing, as is the case.