BuzzerBeater Forums

I agree with change but not with this one.
Stamina increase from superior would mean, teams with 5 stacked starters who play every match could train form and have stamina from 7 nutritionist.

It's not so easy to balance... 7 nutritionist gives now 1-2 pops in season. Which is totally fine in my opinion. I'd say keep that, 6 nutritionist 95% decrease in losing stamina and superior 75%

Or combine it with now useless rehab building in arena somehow.

I agree with change but not with this one.
Stamina increase from superior would mean, teams with 5 stacked starters who play every match could train form and have stamina from 7 nutritionist.

It's not so easy to balance... 7 nutritionist gives now 1-2 pops in season. Which is totally fine in my opinion. I'd say keep that, 6 nutritionist 95% decrease in losing stamina and superior 75%

Or combine it with now useless rehab building in arena somehow.

I had lvl 7 for 2 season and only few players had a pop.
It is absolutely not 1-2 pop a season. This wld be ok for me
But
I read something like a pop every 4 season.

I think the idea of bringing nutritionist to staff was good, but as earlier deanswer suggested stamina should increase with superior(5) level, starting +0,1. It will make u pay another 15-20k weekly to get 1-2 Stamina pops per season depending what level guy you have. That's not cheap, but then it has value

Last edited by sõber at 2/14/2025 11:41:53 AM

Hello


Question how many pops does team training receive a season?

If it higher or random by player attributes ,why are you suggesting lower at set base, if this is the case . Why not suggest randomly based on the players attributes and sub levels.

As I understand it the salary goes up . So my second question is ?. How do you feel about salary contracts on staff.. this would keep price set for a few seasons time, alot can save money and do what's important. Train the team more effectively.

Hey,
I don't have too relevant data to answer your 1st question. I've team trained only 2 seasons during allstar / playoff weeks so 4 trainings in total. Where pretty much whole team got at least 2 pops in stamina. Compared to 7 nutritionist giving max 4 pops total.

Which leads me to 2nd part of your question. I don't really care whether there is contract for a season (I doubt more seasons would be even in consideration) or weekly update. This change would only push prices on staff transfer list a bit higher but no other impact. You wouldn't save any money though.
Now with steady increase when you purchase staff with about 30k salary, in 3 seasons it will be above 70k. But you pay if it's a 7lvl trainer about 2.5M tops. If it was contract based as you suggest. I'd expect double the initial investment so 5M.

I don't see a increase in slary's . Please bare with me here

When evaluating the value of a trainer, it's essential to consider performance-based metrics rather than solely relying on salary increases. By decoupling salary from performance, we can create a more nuanced system that rewards trainers for their actual contributions.

To illustrate this point, let's consider the analogy of buying a player. When acquiring a player, do you base your decision solely on their price, potential, or performance? In this case, we can separate these factors and evaluate the trainer's value based on their actual performance.

The current contract structure, which locks in a salary of 70k per week for 22 weeks, translates to 1.5 million per season. Over three seasons, this amounts to 4.5 million. However, if we consider the alternative approach of paying the auction price, which could be up to 3 million, plus the weekly salary of 70k, the total cost over three seasons would be approximately 13.5 million.

By opting for the contract structure, we can potentially save a significant amount of money. For instance, if we were to hire a level 7 trainer for 1.5 million over three seasons, we could save up to 12 million compared to the current system. This highlights the potential benefits of reevaluating our contract structure and exploring alternative approaches to compensating trainers.

But you wouldn't the costs of hiring staff would surge. Let's take your example which "saves" 12m over 3 seasons... I wouldn't bid 1.5M on that coach but 13m

My rebuttals

In the context of this training game, the primary objective is to optimize team performance through effective training strategies, rather than focusing solely on financial gains. By setting prices for trainers, we can establish a framework that promotes healthy competition and innovation in training methods.

The current price cap of 1.5 million for a level 7 trainer serves as a ceiling, preventing excessive spending and ensuring that managers prioritize training quality over financial outlays. This approach encourages managers to explore and introduce more effective training methods, rather than simply relying on deep pockets. No need to spend 13milion.

By prioritizing training excellence, we can create a market that rewards managers for their expertise and creativity in developing top-notch trainees.This, in turn, can lead to a more competitive and dynamic market, where managers are incentivized to invest in high-quality trainers that drive team success.

Ultimately, the goal is to strike a balance between financial prudence and training excellence, recognizing that the true value lies in the skills and expertise of the trainers& teainee, rather than the price tag attached to them.