BuzzerBeater Forums

Some very interesting idea's especially the fatigue accumulation system you describe

Reminds me of a baseball simulation i used to play which was called CSFBL, i think it rebranded as basehit. They had a dynamic called 'season fatigue' linked to their endurance attribute where if a player played too many games they would get a penalty on their endurance and recovery which in turn limited their effectiveness and it could quickly get out of hand.

You had to make the conscious decision as to whether you wanted to rest your players or just roll with it. You were in a close battle for a playoff spot? You might need to roll with it because you lose a couple of games resting key players then you could miss the postseason. Feeling brave? Rest some guys and try and clutch out a win anyway and get benefit in the playoffs with fresher players. Lots of opportunities for strategic managers to get an advantage and it was one of my favourite parts of the game which otherwise was basically solved at the meta level.

I’m refining my idea for the Rehab Gym. I’m all for it being an option,

We all know a Level 6 doctor costs a fortune. My idea?

You get the fast recovery times and elite protection without the massive weekly salary of a top-tier staff member. But it will be a level 4 tc upgrade. a Level 4 Rehab Gym at $4 million is completely fair, and it should be available to everyone in every division. The perk? It comes with Level 6 medical care built-in for just a $8k weekly maintenance fee.

Also if you already have. Training court level 3. Or level 3 gym. It only 1 million additional cost . Which make this very affordable.

Last edited by Big city at 5/11/2026 12:35:32 PM

Here's another way that 10-12 player teams can be indirectly encouraged:
The number of minutes played during a game should have an larger impact on their in-game GS.
Besides the minutes the player has been active in a game, the player's stamina and experience, as well as the team Attitude (Take it Easy, Normal, Crunch Time) should also have an impact.

For example, if a player stars with GS 9, if they have stamina of 5 they will lose 1 GS after 18 mins, 2 GS after 24 mins, etc.
If they have stamina of 9, they will lose 1 GS after 24 mins, 2 GS after 30 , etc... you get the point.
Similarly, the higher experience the slower the impact on GS, because presumably XP helps players better manage their in-game energy and intensity.
Attitude should also impact in-game GS: TIE might make a player start with lower GS, but it lasts longer because they're taking it easy. While on the other end, CT gives a player a higher starting GS, but deteriorates faster (higher intensity).

In other words, GS has a default curve based on in-game minutes played, and stamina, experience, attitude are modifiers.
And then, after the game, GS is restored by a certain fixed amount (or could also depend on stamina, experience, attitude, age etc.).

I would also argue that stamina should decrease by age, possibly drastically after a certain age.

Finally, it would be cool if stamina increased if players play more minutes and it should similarly decrease if players don't play many minutes. This can probably be implemented regardless.

If done correctly, it could result in a need for teams to have more depth, because a $100K sub with GS 9 would perform better than a $200K starter whose in-game GS has deteriorated to 5 after 40 minutes.

I'm sure there are several holes in this suggestion, and some of these ideas may already be part of the game, but putting it out there as a thought-starter.

I would argue teams that only play 7-8 players already have a higher risk due to the higher minutes played. Every minute played is a chance to get injured. Are you saying the injury risk should be exponentially correlated with minutes played?

But I couldn’t agree with you more about removing injuries, in any facet of the system. Injuries are the “risk” feature to teams that prioritize training or deep runs. There are already risk mitigation features like the doctor that players can take advantage of. Plus the randomness that injuries create is one of the reason this game is fun. Every injured star player on one team is a Cinderella story for another team. Every lost week of U21 training for a prospect is another prospect that gets his chance at glory. Removing or diminishing the effect of injuries (or any other unfavorable effect) will only result in a more consolidated and unified strategy, which IMO is bad for the game.

I get it, injuries suck when they happen to you. Take your lumps and look to take advantage of another injured team another time.

Hello

So basically gatekeeping. That's how I read it .

That u21 sentence is really shameful. When we think of buying a trainer level 5-6 350k to 600k then another 520k in Bb draft also weekly salaries . Taking lumps s basically saying rub dirt on a torn acl & Get better soon.

Also level 6 doctor 225k bid and 30k+ a week...

Last edited by Big city at 5/19/2026 11:04:36 PM

I appreciate the frustration of it, but if it was easy and there was little risk, then everyone would do it.

There is a real (and I would argue more likely) scenario where you allow training to occur while players are injured, and that will make it MORE difficult to create a u21 player. Less risk -> more managers participating - more u21 competition -> higher cost for trainers. I think you need to consider the long term consequences of reducing the impact of injuries to the game and not just the short term desire for 1-2 more pops.

I’m all for modifying the current system, but there must always be a risk/reward approach to keep the game from becoming one-dimensional.

An exponential correlation of injury and minutes played would be interesting and I would be in favor of it IF it was applied over a full week (or longer if that’s possible), and not within a game. The current training system almost requires you to play your trainee a full 48 mins a game, so if that correlation is applied intra-game, it would severely disrupt training.