BuzzerBeater Forums

You find training illogical, comparing to IRL, it is, but in game it is good imho.

1. In this game, players are not trained ("positions" are). A "position" is an abstract concept. IRL and in most games, players are trained. There is no need whatsoever to have to train "positions" in this game.
2. Players who don't play in games don't get trained. That is illogical for both RL and the game.

You can say those things don't bother you, and I'll accept that. But that doesn't make them logical; they aren't.

Part of the root cause is that BB-Charles was very active in Hattrick before BB came, so some of the basic structures (skills from 0-20, training by position and requiring that players played in that position, enthusiasm and game shape, etc) are very closely patterned after the way they were implemented in HT.

On the second issue, while on a pure logical level it doesn't make sense, there is a very good reason for it in terms of game balance. As it stands, to create very good players with training, one is required to sacrifice somewhat by playing these players in league/cup games when they are not yet ready. At higher levels, especially, there is a significant downside to doing so, and one is therefore left with the choice of competing or training. The results of this are that, over time, the teams become older and older and eventually can no longer be sustained, opening up room for advancement for younger teams. Meanwhile, lower level teams have the option to create very nice players that they can either use for themselves as they progress or sell to other managers for very nice profits.

If the game were to go to the model you seem to be proposing, any thoughts of having to sacrifice simply disappear. The best teams would have the best players, and then they'd be able to train the best trainees as well since it doesn't hamper them in any way. The transfer market would end up devolving so that newly drafted high potential guys would be even more insanely priced than now and pretty much everyone else would be nearly worthless since everyone would be developing three players themselves.


Last edited by GM-hrudey at 1/4/2015 8:54:51 AM

Mr. Hrudey, thank you for your comments about the roots of the problem. I am aware that the training system in Hattrick has the same illogical elements. I was afraid that maybe some other games have logical, simple training systems copyrighted, and all that was left was what we and Hattrick are stuck with. Actually, I am glad to hear that that may NOT be the problem, and that maybe a simple, logical training system can still be implemented in BB without violating copyrights.

I agree with you that a training system that simply causes the rich to get richer is not a step forward. There is no model that I "seem to be proposing" at this time because I have only voiced observations of the specific concrete problems in our current training system. I have not yet made any suggestions as to a possible solution except that it should be a logical and simple system in which players, not positions, are trained. Now I would add that it should not cause a "strong get stronger" effect unnecessarily. Nor should it cause a "poor get richer" effect unnecessarily, of course. Training would have to have some controls; balance rather than sacrifice is a constructive way to think about the limitations that should apply.

No need for your doomsday characterization of any solution that no one has even put forward yet. Thank you.

I agree with you that a training system that simply causes the rich to get richer is not a step forward. There is no model that I "seem to be proposing" at this time because I have only voiced observations of the specific concrete problems in our current training system. I have not yet made any suggestions as to a possible solution except that it should be a logical and simple system in which players, not positions, are trained. Now I would add that it should not cause a "strong get stronger" effect unnecessarily. Nor should it cause a "poor get richer" effect unnecessarily, of course. Training would have to have some controls; balance rather than sacrifice is a constructive way to think about the limitations that should apply.

No need for your doomsday characterization of any solution that no one has even put forward yet. Thank you.

I should have said "seem to be advocating for" rather than proposing, and I'll ignore the whole paragraph sidetrack commentary about copyrights because I know it should have made me laugh and might have if I read it at another time.

The "players not positions" idea has been put forward before, where you pick three players (for example) and as long as they get minutes, they get full training at whatever training regimen selected. That is less bad than not requiring any training at all, for example, but it also means that the players who currently require special effort to make will now be available for anyone to make without making the effort. Depending on the minute rules, it could even be that a team play all three players in one thrown game and then play full competitive lineups in their other two. Since you're not making a proposal, though, and since you seem to agree that there needs to be consideration about having meaningful choices rather than simply just being logical, there's no point in digging further into it yet.

Depending on the minute rules, it could even be that a team play all three players in one thrown game and then play full competitive lineups in their other two.

Uhm could it be that you "seem to be advocating" that training 3 players out of position would be "making the effort" because it requires managers to throw more games than 1? What kind of game pushes a player to lose more in order to succeed/have fun?

I'm ignoring the rest of the quote because it was just more building upon the same faulty initial premise, that you have to throw games to train players out of position in competitive leagues (and further that the game requires that). That's the equivalent of sitting in a room where the door is open, the window is shut, and claiming to be trapped in the room because you can't open the window. It's simply faulty logic - you are not required to throw games or be uncompetitive to train players out of position, unless you're at a very high level. Obviously, in the NBBA you're going to have a tough go of it, and probably in my current league I would have a hard time, but I had three eighteen year old big men that I played pretty much exclusively out of position for training from season 19 through season 21 and still sporadically after that. I was in a competitive III series, and I didn't throw games - I'd have weeks where I did the two position stuff to try to have stronger lineups when needed, and one position some weeks when I was facing an easier team, but I didn't throw games.

So I categorically reject the premise that it "can't" be done and that the game "pushes a player to lose more in order to succeed/have fun?" I mean, I ended up fifth all three seasons, though I'm still bitter about a buzzer beater dunk at the end of the last game that meant I missed the playoffs by two points of PD. It was not as easy as just fielding a cookie cutter lineup, of course, and it required me to think about what I was doing, but those appear to be things about the game that others might like. I know I enjoyed the competition and the challenge.

Well I completely agree. However, use the same logic you applied in your last comment and apply it to the second last. You'll find out that all you can apply all the arguments to the current system as well and maybe more.

Point 1 you made:

a team play all three players in one thrown game

I was trying to explain that the situation would not be worse than today where you have to train every game out of position because the same regime must be applied to all trainees. All you have said in your last comment applies equally to the current system as well. As I was trying to argue, on average teams would be a bit more competitve in the new system than they are today.

I would expect that at the middle to higher levels, there'd be even more incidence of teams completely throwing a game per week - which is common enough as it is in the middle levels for teams contemplating Cup runs. If throwing a single game would also allow you to train three players a full 48 minutes as well, it would simply add additional incentive for that. But of course, that's just as much speculation as the thought that it would improve competitiveness so we can just leave it as a difference of opinion.

My last two thoughts on the subject:
1. I reject the notion that you have to throw games to train out of position, and seeing as how I did it, my opinion is pretty resolute.
2. If you can train all three players in one game, it takes away the concept of having to make some compromises; it makes it possible to be your most competitive and still train three unique players with no side effects (other than perhaps bailing out of the Cup early or throwing a league game). The difference is now the teams that already throw games like that will now also be able to get a full week's training to do so. It replaces a meaningful decision (to do training or squeeze a little more productivity out of the roster) with an almost mandatory decision to do both.