BuzzerBeater Forums

What I would like to propose is adding a "Player" option as an alternate training target. If selected, this would enable another drop down widget with the choice of a particular player to focus training efforts and eliminating the need to play them out of position to receive the training. Less on the job training would be assumed in this case, which would also require the additional focus of trainers. As a fair compromise, only the single player would be able to receive training benefit for the week.

I think this would allow for more realistic training scenarios, provide a simple means for working around any deficiencies that may exist the AI substitution process, and allow flexibility in lineup choices (i.e. play PF/C interchangeably without training penalty). This change could be implemented with minimal effort, and without unfair impact to game balance. This could give NT coaches more time to play their star players in their specialized positions for observation without penalty, and give managers one more bit of flexibility to work around frustrating and odd occurrences that could disrupt a players training.

One variation on this idea I thought of would be to allow the player selected for individual training to receive full training benefit. This would for example, allow a workaround for NT coaches who get hit with walkovers disrupting their critical training programs. This could not be abused for cost benefit, since there would be no monetary advantage to limiting your training to only one player. If this variation was used though, it would probably become necessary to include a condition that this option would only be eligible for teams that did not force any walkovers during the week.

Thoughts?

Thoughts?

After 11 seasons we get the regular relatively new manager come in and suggest something that has been requested and denied on numerous occasions.

I would guess this suggestion coincides with the fact you might now be finding it difficult to give the training you really want to the players as you now need to also focus on winning matches.

I once also suggested this and I think its fair to say that the training we've all grown to love or hate is here to stay. Plan your future transfers with it and turn the options that are available to you into a positive.

After 11 seasons we get the regular relatively new manager come in and suggest something that has been requested and denied on numerous occasions.

To be fair, I spent at least 2 hours digging and searching through the suggestions forum and others to locate a similar request. I do apologize if this is in fact a duplicate request, but if it has been requested and denied on numerous occasions I'd just like to add that I had heck of a time determining that. I noticed you didn't link to an existing request or cite a reason for denial of the request or even reference your own alleged request. Did you have the same difficulty locating a previous reference, or did you just not feel like wasting your time on anything beyond a dismissive post? I have a hard time understanding how something being suggested before invalidates my request, and I am unable to refute your logic since you did not present any. This is not an angry rebuttal, but a naturally skeptical one.

I would guess this suggestion coincides with the fact you might now be finding it difficult to give the training you really want to the players as you now need to also focus on winning matches.

I might have guessed the same same thing, but that isn't the case. I actually found it rather easy to do both. Right now I feel like I've really started to actually get down the existing system, and it hasn't held back my hopes for training the players I need or the hope for a fourth consecutive championship appearance. This was just an idea that popped into my head when playing my 7 footers in the point last night, which I found humorous. Fortunately it didn't stop me from winning by 55PTS. Again, I did the best research I could to determine if this had been requested. I was unable to find any real faults after challenging my own ideas. I will of course, side with logic and also understand if this is being dismissed by others without regard for reason.

I once also suggested this and I think its fair to say that the training we've all grown to love or hate is here to stay. Plan your future transfers with it and turn the options that are available to you into a positive.

Unlike the people who often post here, I try not to post out of anger and frustration, or make requests to band-aid for my inability to adapt. This is also my first official suggestion. I can appreciate the message you are trying to deliver, but I don't think it fits my situation or motives. I don't mean to take credit for anyone's idea, and again I did attempt to locate previous reference and would not have posted without doing my due diligence.

There isn't much point debating if your argument is, yeah whatever get used to it and me first! Don't worry, I'm not offended. I'm a rational person, and I think this is a rational response to your comments. I'm an adult, and can take criticism of my idea, but I'm not here to get a critique of myself as an individual. I won't respond with assumptions about your arrogance, and since we are allies I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you are also a nice guy. I respect your seniority, but I'm not going to be vulnerable to an argumentum ad verecundiam or expectation that I accept your word as fact because of your status. You claim to have supported this idea, so lets hear the argument that shot it down.

I apologise for the directness of my response.

We originally had a petition/federation to try to get the powers that be to change the training options and after many seasons we now have the ability to use players in different offensive and defensive positions.. this seems to be the compromise that gives us more flexibility to plan with than in the early seasons.

No offense intended - my posts are as valid as the next non Mod/LA/GM/BB - but this is the likely response you'll read and it does save the thread being drawn out for the sake of it.

PS. If I'm wrong and there are plans a foot to broaden training options then HOORAY!!

No offense taken. I understand if you couldn't have cited a reference due to this being a federation or private discussion. It has been said that out of every one hundred ideas generated in the minds of men, only one will ultimately be expressed as a suggestion. So lets consider for a moment that these rare suggestions are even more rarely given serious consideration, and that a smaller number of those are regarded as noteworthy and feasible. Given your account of how resulting suggestions are treated, the common suggestion box humor seems applicable. I might have been experiencing a rare moment of optimism, but I just hated to pass up what I believed to be an original and noteworthy suggestion. I agree, there is little value in discussing ideas that have already been summarily dismissed.




Last edited by bonespawn at 10/31/2010 4:22:57 PM

So politically correct and civilized ! Boring ! ;)

One "player" training seems a little bit of a waste to me imo. I still wouldnt even use it. If you want to train just one player just do "one position training."

Also if the game was to allow "one player training" then people would ask for "two player training" ect. ect. Then the position training would become useless.

So I agree with BB for shooting this idea down.

Thanks for your insight, but I think we already established that there is no point to this discussion.

I'm not for your idea, because I can't imagine who would use it unless the training is quicker than usual single position training. Even for farm teams training for NT's it's not needed as they don't care about playing out of position. But I agree training bigmen at PG to get passing or outside def. training is boring. I personally use such a trainings quite often, but in my eyes there has been still very few teams which has been able to adapt well at present training rules even with changing positions for defence. As a NT manager I can say it's always very difficult to persuade managers for out of position trainings. I would suggest some new training options like every single trainings available on SF, this should be probably acceptable to use for much more teams than using present out of position trainings.

SF demands lowest wage (compared with others), therefore I think that this position have to be hardest to get.

Every position should have single training available with limitation like PG can't have inside skill single training.

SG - SF should have single training for OD PA etc...
PG - SF should have single training for JR
PF - SF should have single training for IS ID
PF should have single training for Block
etc

If you look at the training system a SF trainee has to play anything but SF to progress in single training, PF too . it makes no sense.

You want to train your SG ? he should play SG, you want your C to have some SG skill ? he should play SG.