BuzzerBeater Forums

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.

I believe I do understand your proposal and hrudey's ...

Are you seriously claiming that you are proposing something harsher than playing each trainee 1 or 2 games a week out of position for several seasons?

Your problem seem to actually be with managers who are able to obtain good results with the current system. I'd say it's pretty safe to assume you don't consider yourself one of those who have figured it out...

The next time I see you say anything that accurately reflected my suggestions will be the first time. That's why I say you don't understand. It's very evident.

What I would like to see is a training system just as challenging for managers if not moreso, but logical.

I don't really know or care which managers are "good" at the current system, actually. I consider myself a relative newbie at BB who recognizes a contorted, illogical mess (such as training) when he sees it. There is no logic whatsoever to training a "position" instead of a player, no logic whatsoever to having to train a player "out of position" for optimal results, no logic whatsoever to having to play minutes in a competitive game in order to get any benefit from training at all, etc. If only Hattrick had had a simple, logical system of training when BB spun off from it, we would be blessed with one, too.

By the way, I am pretty much done with anyone who simply wants to blindly argue rather than elevating the discourse on the merits of the subject (hint, hint).