BuzzerBeater Forums

I don't think it presents any more problems than we have now. I mean, if you're training inside or outside shooting and your trainee never takes a shot during the game, he still gets training, right?


Steve
Go Bruins!

I don't think it is that complicated. Players would receive training depending on what position they play on the offensive end.

your trainee never takes a shot during the game, he still gets training, right?

For some of my trainees, "You're atrocious. Never take a shot." IS their shooting training.

Passing up bad shots is part of shooting training. Being assigned to guard a player on the perimeter is not inside D training.

I don't think it is that complicated. Players would receive training depending on what position they play on the offensive end.

My post explained why that is not acceptable to me. Do you have a reason to support your 'status quo' argument?

Statu* quo ;)

Sorry, but your explanation only seems to make a point to yourself. Why should it be more complicated than that? Explain it to me, cause I don't get it. Making it more complicated would bring nothing to the game, while allocating training minutes to players depending on their offensive positions: a) is easy; b) is intuitional; c) allows you to prepare your defensive pairings without worrying about who receives training; d) prevents your opposition from intentionaly forcing you into a situation where you would lose training minutes.

Explain it to me, cause I don't get it. Making it more complicated would bring nothing to the game,

I'll try simpler, plainer language. I'd do it in Spanish, if I could :)

I'm not advocating complication, I am pointing out that the proposal would make the game more complicated and create a situation for cheating, too.

Let me show another example:

Again suppose you are training C/PF and that the game allows you to assign matchups. Let us further suppose you have a SG you wish to train for Inside Defense. You start him at PF, where his INEPT defense would be a tremendous liability to your team. So you switch him to guard the other team's SG (as he would playing by today's rules/game engine). Your regular PF is in the starting lineup as the SG, but he changes defensive positions to guard the other team's PF (because of the switch made by your SG).

To summarize, you have placed your SG in the lineup at the PF position, but have switched his defensive assignment back to SG (the PF starts at SG but is switched back also). Because he is the PF starter, the SG would get Inside Defense training under your idea. However, NOTHING has changed in the way the game works defensively because you have reversed the position slots on defense. That is, the SG is still guarding the other team's SG, and your PF is still guarding the other team's PF.

Therefore I see the only point of this suggestion to be allowing a new exploitation of the rules to let you cheat to get training at different slots than the game now allows.

I hope that's clear. If not, I'll try again.

Last edited by Your_Imaginary_Friend at 3/22/2008 10:45:35 AM

Perfectly explained. However, I still can't see why in hell that would seem like cheating to you. You prepare your tactics and deploy your players on offense and defense the way you like, and you allocate training minutes for the players you want. Just like in RL you can focus on coaching a given player with great upside, or one who can fit your system if he improves his skills on a concrete area.

What the BB Staff are doing here is trying to establish a balanced training system that allows developing your players abilities and also provides some income to your club. Something simple, easy to understand. Improving the tactical part of the game is a MUST, in my opinion, but not at the expense of complicating or unbalancing training.

I guess we just see it differently. The thing is I just can't understand why you try to imply that defensive pairings have ANYTHING TO DO at all with training. Cause they don't.

Perfectly explained.

Not really. I still haven't gotten through to you.

The thing is I just can't understand why you try to imply that defensive pairings have ANYTHING TO DO at all with training.

I didn't IMPLY it. I stated it directly.

Oh well. I tried.

Not really. I still haven't gotten through to you.

I'm afraid it's you who's unable to understand what I'm trying to say. Nevermind, you'll probably find out, with time, that training schemes are probably going to stay more less the same in the future. On the other hand, I'm quite sure (much) more variety and depth will be put into the tactics system rather sooner than later.

I didn't IMPLY it. I stated it directly.

Oh well. I tried.

Well, then allow me to spell it for you - T A C T I C S and T R A I N I N G have nothing to do at all with each other. So your first post is senseless, IMHO. IF defensive pairings are to be implemented into the game, they should NOT affect training at all.

Going on with your example, let's imagine you're training RBD with C/PFs. You want your SG to receive rebounding training, so you deploy him as a PF but use your 'real' PF to defend the best player of your rival in that position. Right, the SG is 'benefiting' somehow from the system. But, at the same time, your 'real' PF is not receiving any training at all. Furthermore, your rival can ALSO do the same thing, or something similar, if he/she wishes. So where the heck is the ADVANTAGE, my friend? I don't see it anywhere.

I understand you don't see my point about T A C T I C S and T R A I N I N G having an impact on each other once you allow for switching positions on defense.

The ADVANTAGE, my friend comes from you getting rebounding training for your SG but not getting hit with a reduced inside defense because you switched him out on defense.

I realize that you don't get that and never will.

Once we can have a civil discussion about this, we'll revisit it.

/Juiced