BuzzerBeater Forums

I’ve been meaning to bring this up a long while back but then I keep forgetting to write it down. Anyway, here’s something that has bothered me for a very long time. So, you know how sometimes you’re training Pressure, which is primarily training up OD, except that they guy you’re training doesn’t have a very high OD yet so you don’t want him to defend there, and what do you do?, well I know what you do since I do the same thing, that is to say, play that player at PG but have him defend somewhere where his poor OD won’t hurt the team so much, like maybe SF, and then have the SG or SF defend the opposing PG. Are you with me? Good. If the whole point of making a player play out of position to get training at the position is that he needs experience at the position to train, then how the heck can a PG defend out of position and be getting “PG” training for the sake of PG defense??? Strange, no?

Obviously, there needs to be a way to adjust training so that training a defensive skill requires defending at the position, not playing offense at the position. (Maybe somebody’s going to say that a PG can learn how to defend a PG by being defended by a PG. Maybe. And maybe I’ll learn how to do brain surgery by observing a surgeon operate on my brain.)

And this concludes my latest sermon on common sense. Next time I will elaborate on why an airplane does not need hand brakes.

I agree this needs to be changed back to what it was in the beginning. Play the spot to learn something, but play it fully. I don't want to look at those SG's shooting lights out at PF while defending opposing SG position.
Then again training currently is not superawesomely profitable:)

Well, I'm not suggesting that we go back to the old way since I like having flexible players that allow me to play unorthodox lineup from time to time. I think unless there's a major change in the way training is done here that we need the flexibility with the lineups that the offense/defense options give us. I'm just saying that there needs to be a little more logic in the training part of the equation, that if a player is training on a defensive skill, then he should actually be playing defense at that position. I'm fine with a player at the SF position getting OD training minutes if the SF position is defending the opposing PG, or getting ID training if he's defending the C position.

There are 7 offencive skills and 4 defencive skills (rebounding counting for both). So can you choose with reb training or can you get double training in rebounding with assigning one player on offence and another in defence thus getting them both full training?
Dunno seems to make the training even more complicated for new users. Then there is the minutes played offence/defence option. But it would create a training havoc for sure:D

I think it would just have to be explained in a couple of sentences in the Game Manual under Training, probably not too confusing. It would also help to have a reminder of this right in the Training page (i.e. listing which skills train on offense and which on defense.

Regarding Rebounding, maybe it's 2/3 defense and 1/3 offense? That's a rough estimate of how rebounds are distributed in the NBA. In BB it's actually more like 3/4 defense and 1/4 offense.

Regarding Rebounding, maybe it's 2/3 defense and 1/3 offense?

So making it the only skill, you have to play both offence and defence at the designated training spot(s), for optimal training.
Sure we can manage that fine, but it seems a bit complicated for new users. But they will mess up their first trainee anyway.

Perhaps a little more complicated in terms of mechanics, but since it's a bit more logical then maybe new users will understand training a little better, too?

If the whole point of making a player play out of position to get training at the position is that he needs experience at the position to train, then how the heck can a PG defend out of position and be getting “PG” training for the sake of PG defense??? Strange, no?

Perhaps he observes the guy defending him. :-)

If the whole point of making a player play out of position to get training at the position is that he needs experience at the position to train, then how the heck can a PG defend out of position and be getting “PG” training for the sake of PG defense??? Strange, no?

Perhaps he observes the guy defending him. :-)

I knew somebody was going to say something like that! From the first post:

(Maybe somebody’s going to say that a PG can learn how to defend a PG by being defended by a PG. Maybe. And maybe I’ll learn how to do brain surgery by observing a surgeon operate on my brain.)

Ha, caught for not reading it all.

I would say that the NBA is more 1/4 offensive 3/4 defensive. Not that it makes a big difference.