BuzzerBeater Forums

Also at some point they will have to understand that you don't fix this just fiddling and fiddling and fiddling with the demand side without ever touching the supply side. You can easily speed up point 5. above and make it less painful if you just increase the training speed, which, it shouldn't surprise anyone, would also boost the value of training...

Agree x10000!

A like ball for lemonshine...thats another example on how grave the situation has become ;)

Great post! I think, though, the best way to deal with this situation is by letting managers train more players.

If we just speed up training it might just end up making all players better. Sure you'll be able to afford better quality players but you'll also need better players to able to compete with everyone else. For instance a player considered "Div 1 quality" now would of course become cheaper if we speed up training, but then since faster training allows you to make better players, he may no longer be considered Div 1 quality.

If we let managers train more players then what we do is make more good players available for everyone, without changing the player quality needed to succeed at each level.

The ones you and the user before you said are all solutions. Train more players at lower speed is one solution, but you need to understand whether users will take that option. They will take it if it does make sense financially and from a competitive point of view. Today that isn't the case.

At the moment 2 position training is about 2/3 of the speed on 1 position think. So technically it is already more efficient overall to train 5 or 6 players in 2 position training than 2-3 players in single position from a pure 'skill increase' perspective. The problem is that with 2 position is impossible to cap high potential players as you noted. So it needs to makes sense financially which is the reason why 2 position training is not all that popular right now. If a high potential player capped using 1 position training generates about the same profit as 2 lower potential players capped with 2 position training in about the same time, then it would be perfect.

Obviously the relative value of 2 vs 1 position changes over time depending where the market goes. If you make 2 position very good a lot of people will start using it and when we start having more mid level players 6-8 seasons down the line, the price for those players will likely go down reducing the profitability.

This may be better than increasing all training speed because you will cater to the teams training "normal" guys those with star-perennial allstar potential and you create more trained players, we need both. It's not easy to get it right so that the choice between high potential + 1 position and lower potential + 2 position isn't lopsided either way, but if I have to choose, I'd choose that the 2 position option becomes the more prominent of the 2 (so the opposite of today). U21 players will still need the 1 position option to be same as today.

To be honest the way things have been in the game I think an improved 2 position training will be a hard sell, but some people will pick it up especially at lower levels.

Last edited by Lemonshine at 12/14/2016 4:37:13 AM

If we just speed up training it might just end up making all players better.

Yes that's partly true. It is true for players who are not capped (and I agree that some are not trained up to their potential). If everyone always capped his players, we'd end up capping earlier and moving on to other trainees.

The end goal is clear though: one way or another more players need to be created than we are currently creating. And possibly not by force but by giving a valid option to managers or improving one that is already there.

Just a general question: who decides the changes that find their way into the game?

Is it Marin and some grey eminence in the background, do the (E)GMs have a word in this?

At the moment i am not sure whats more disappointing, the S37 news or the lack of communication of the people responsible for them. EGM Foto is (aside from Manon in some niche topics) the only one available for discussion and both of them prefer to abandon certain topics once the weight of arguments tilts against the proposed changes.

"We are reading the forum and take all opinions into consideration" (EGM Foto) is a comment browser game companies issue after they decided to pull the plug and already fired all developers to keep players in the dark about the state of the game.

I dont want to imply this is the case here but i also expect a real answer / explanation / point of view on the topics raised here and in other threads.

Its wednesday so today we can expect BB-Perpete to comment.

Last edited by Gully Foyle at 12/14/2016 9:20:16 AM

Why not eliminate the position based training altogether and let any player be trained in any skill every week as long as the get 48 minutes? That would be the ideal scenario I think.