BuzzerBeater Forums

Contrary to some people say, it is upsetting for a current SF trainers to see the training become easier. Brianjames said that current SF trainers will have better players to start with, so they don't stand to lose from the proposed change: well, not if those players are 23 and maxed out (think Ismael Grubbs here).

The game can't progress (or, some would prefer change) cause it might poorly effect some players. Fair enough. I don't think it makes BB any better for the future, but that's just me.

Based on that, I think it's ironic that some of those taking this opinion are telling others to adapt.

Last edited by brian at 1/7/2009 3:45:47 PM

Hmmm, but you are suggesting penalising the players that looked at the situation and thought long-term and are only now due to be rewarded.

The game can't progress (or, some would prefer change) cause it might poorly effect some players. Fair enough. I don't think it makes BB any better for the future, but that's just me.

Based on that, I think it's ironic that some of those taking this opinion are telling others to adapt.

I'm telling people to adapt, even though I've already trained a good SF and I"m training another SG to be SF. I think my experience doing is why I'm advocating for a way to more effectively train a SF like other positions can be trained, because even though my team will be helped less relative to other teams, I just see this as the right thing to do for the game. It's not like this is such a radical departure from the way things are now. In fact, I actually see this as a rather minor change being proposed. Why all the fuss? If the developers see this little tweak in the training, by letting teams train only SF (or only wingmen or forwards) for some already existing training skills, let's just decide it should be done. I would venture to say that if this change happened, most teams that aren't reading this thread wouldn't even notice the change, and those that did would probably be like, hey! that will help me strategize with my training better and gee! that sure helps me train the way I really want to train. In less than a season, we'll all have forgotten what it was like when we couldn't train SFs by themselves for anything, with only SGs for just one skill.

I'm supporting the idea that there's a flaw in the training system that is also poorly affecting the diversity of tactical choices occurring. Teams are developing into inside teams or outside teams. Some are to the point they can play both. Tactically, BB is growing into the equivalent of a coin flip.

I believe this outweighs the costs of making changes. It's not like this change won't affect me. I have the ability to create a strong inside our outside attack, and have positioned well to develop the rare SF's we're talking about. I've spent time training players out of position and have and currently benefit from it.

I'm not telling anyone to "adapt", as should be clear from my previous post. I'm in favor of a balanced move towards a proper SF training (as I described it above).

Sorry, I should have added that my comments weren't directed at you, but it was a convenient train of thought to make them.

I subscribe to the Forrest Doctrine: we can make major changes, but we need to understand exactly the tradeoffs of each move.

Agree, the last thing I want to see is BB make major changes. Any changes are best made gradually with plenty of notification ahead of time.

I don't think it's a bad thing that teams who develop the ability to play any tactic reduce the opposition's ability to start with the right defensive tactics to a 50% shot. And that teams that do not do so, do not.

What we perhaps need to think about then, is how fast The Coach can adapt (and how much the GM/owner/player is prepared to trust the coach to do so - while accepting that personnel selection may mean optimal adaption to visible tactics may not happen). It kind of opens up a player 'Intelligence' rating, that could provide a modifier to how players can exploit opposition tactics, but that's another story I suppose.

Michael Jordan can prolly play any position in basketball.

Sure, he has good post moves, yet the bulls never played him at center. I wonder why?

Two words: Luc Longley!

Oh, and to stay on topic, I don't mind training the way it is now. It's tough to build SFs, but the market rewards it accordingly.

And second, it would let us put a C/PF or PG/SG at SF for a game or two to train out of position instead of doing something more extreme, like having to play a PG at C/PF to, say, train up shot blocking or rebounding.

That's my point. If the SF training would be that omnipotent, it would damage the balance (we can argue how much balance there currently is but at least some). Especially if SF training would provide reasonable traing for outside defence and inside defense at the same time many players would choose that training not only for future SFs but for other positions too, making defenisve squads more common and thus unbalanced the game as it is now (and there are theories that defense in BB is mroe trained than offense even now reasulting in lower FG% than managers expected). The same with other attributes if they could be trained more easier for SF than now. It would inflate those skills. I don't want to see a day where whole starting five on many teams are all small forwards.

since we have a "jumper for forwards" training option that is actually 50% IS and 50% JS, I can't see where's the problem in having a "defense for small forwards" training option that is 50% ID and 50% OD.

Because it would be used massively. And excessively maybe. Everybody sane would consider it. It would be unbelieveably easy way to make all-around players.