BuzzerBeater Forums

Help - English > Can a player pop twice a week?

Can a player pop twice a week?

Set priority
Show messages by
From: iwen
This Post:
00
150972.72 in reply to 150972.71
Date: 7/12/2010 12:26:01 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
345345
The main reasons for really quick consecutive pops can be narrowed down to two factors.

The first. Ridiculously high sublevels.

Second. The skill being trained is lagging behind other primary skills ie. Sensational IS/ID, but only an inept rebounder. You'll likely see 3 pops in 4 weeks of initial training, as the player is more skilled and rebounding skill will play catchup.

The only luck involved in training that I've experiences is initial sublevels of the skill. (JS 10 being closer to 9 than 11, meaning 2 weeks to train pop as opposed to one)

From: yodabig

To: iwen
This Post:
00
150972.73 in reply to 150972.72
Date: 7/12/2010 10:05:07 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
14651465
I am sure there is no luck in training, only so many variable factors (height, age, other skills and sub-levels) that sometimes it looks like there is.

What about with team training? If I organised a player to be sold shortly after my team update on Friday 5:30PM EST and he popped in stamina and was bought by another team also doing team training in stamina I am sure he could have a double pop. They could sell him back to me and we could do the same thing again getting him up to 4 stamina pops in 2 weeks.

From: Kukoc

This Post:
00
150972.74 in reply to 150972.73
Date: 7/12/2010 12:28:22 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
13361336
Try it, I'm pretty sure you can't. BB's have thought about abuses like this.

From: Batman

This Post:
00
150972.75 in reply to 150972.64
Date: 7/13/2010 5:28:58 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
00
Don't forget that there is still a luck factor involved.
Stopped reading there, good luck.


That's too bad. Because if you had kept reading you would have noticed that I don't try to pass it of as a fact but simply my opinion. Wasn't exactly my idea, ether. It's something that many managers believe, and may or may not be true. But it makes perfect sense and there is some circumstantial evidence to support it. If you don't think that's the case thats fine, but I am curios what exactly makes you so absolutely positive that it's wrong. It's not like it would be unprecedented for something like that to exist in the sim. For example game shape can fluctuate very wildly. Much more so than to just say that it's cumulative effect of several weeks minutes.

This Post:
00
150972.76 in reply to 150972.60
Date: 7/13/2010 5:46:15 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
00
In the same way, the onus is on you to prove that there is a luck factor. Not on me.


You just can't understand what I mean, so let me try again. I don't have to prove it even if I could. The reason is because I don't say that it's anything other than my opinion. You say stuff like it's a fact. That means you do have to prove it, or at least make a very compelling argument. I described to you how my case with the level skipping could be viable, and you failed to prove that it isn't. Notice that I don't claim that it's 100% possible, only that it could be. But you still insist that your version is fact and give ridiculous examples to support your case. That's the difference between you and me in terms of "onus" as you put it.

From: zyler

This Post:
00
150972.77 in reply to 150972.76
Date: 7/13/2010 8:32:03 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
217217
there is no luck involved in training , except getting ur guys 48 mins every week with out hitting an injury or foul out.
read the faq which is stickyed because it has correct info in it not incorret info. or read the the training thread which is in the important threads sticky, also correct info.
next topic.

From: Batman

This Post:
00
150972.78 in reply to 150972.77
Date: 7/13/2010 10:48:12 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
00
There are plenty of well know mistakes in the training thread and unless the comment in the FAQ is by a BB it's just an opinion, as well. That's not important, though, because it's just not a deciding factor in this equation anyway. But you are definitely right about one thing. I don't want to talk about it anymore. It's pointless to try and prove anything to anyone who already has their mind made up before they even look at the evidence. Obviously this whole subject is trivial, but the important thing about it is this is how a lot of people here operate. Based on guesses and conjecture, and accept it as fact. I only took exception with the degree of certainty with which he was talking and how vigorously he chose to defend his view to be nothing less than fact were in reality it is nothing more than his unsubstantiated opinion, to which he is surely entitled as long as he presents it as such.

This Post:
00
150972.79 in reply to 150972.78
Date: 7/13/2010 10:54:22 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
522522
You could argue that almost nothing in this game can be "proven". However, the statement I gave is what the majority of people believe, and unless there is factual evidence, or even strong circumstantial evidence, to support your theory, people shouldn't be told that there is a luck factor in training. You seem to think that I am vigorously defending my view, but it seems to me that everyone in this thread agrees with my point of view and accepts it as fact. No one yet has agreed with you.

This Post:
00
150972.80 in reply to 150972.79
Date: 7/13/2010 11:58:50 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
217217
no ones agreed with him because his completely wrong.

This Post:
00
150972.81 in reply to 150972.79
Date: 7/14/2010 12:26:23 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
00
I think you are finally starting to get it. That is exactly what I have been trying to explain to you all along. I have an opinion. No more, no less. If I have no proof other than a hunch which could end up been nothing more than just that. That's how I present it. I wouldn't at all be surprised if there was no luck factor in training. I happen to think that it's possible. But, that's just my opinion and I don't try to pass it for anything other than that. You on the other hand have an opinion that double pops are not possible, yet are totally ok with dismissing any and all evidence that it may or may not be true based on nothing else other than a hunch of your own. Do you see the difference?

Last edited by Batman at 7/14/2010 12:26:35 AM

This Post:
00
150972.82 in reply to 150972.81
Date: 7/14/2010 12:39:55 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
522522
The difference I see is that my "opinion" is something that everyone else happens to agree with and is more likely than yours. For example, you have not provided any evidence that a double pop is possible, nor any evidence that there is a luck factor in training, so I have not dismissed any evidence because you have provided none.

Advertisement