BuzzerBeater Forums

Yes

Imagine you have your SF in a salary around 80k, with high sublevels in some skills like rebounds, OD, ID or JR

(acording to the salary calculator)

14 9
15 13
16 11
12 11
11 7


You are training 1n1 in SF-PF(for 14 weeks) that is a really cheap training in terms of salary(it will raise his salary just in case his JS pops), but his rebounds, ID, OD and JR pop because of crossed training in 1 season.

This players after 1 season of 1n1 could be like this;


15 10
16 15
18 11
13 12
12 7

In terms of salary calculator, this SF is around now to a 126k player, when you were training 1n1 in SF-PF and maybe you just wanted that the skill to raise his salary was 1 level of JS or max 2 levels of JS.

You had your 80k player, it raises his JS and it's a 95k player, but if the other skills with high sublevels raise, it will be a 126k player ¡¡¡ And maybe you will have to sell just because he poped when he dindt have to.


So my question is, this system is helping the multiskilled players? I don't think so

Last edited by Marot at 7/30/2011 9:01:02 AM

And what will happen when this SF has a salary of 100k(for example) and his worst skill is around 10? If you continue training him, you will have high sublevels, it happens when you train a SF, it always have high sublevels. You will be happy to watch he pops in JS or rebounds and next season paying him a bigger salary?

From what I understand, without cross training, if you continue training him, he will have lower sublevels in some skills, but higher levels in the skills that are trained. So this leads to a worse player being paid a higher salary by the following season.

No if you are training 1n1 for SF-PF like they did with Tobias Kienbink or with Zuya(2 of the best SF)

If those player have really high sublevels, I think it is more accurate to add one to that skill when using the salary calculator. So at the start of the season, the said player will be around... let's say 115-120k rather than 80k.

But I think I can agree with you that the system is not helping the multiskilled players. I think it is made to prevent one dimensional players.

That is all correct, but if your player has high sublevels he won't have a salary of 80k, he will have more because of the sublevels.
And you can't calculate a players' sublevels so, the salary calculators are only used with the .0 of the skills, for example 7.0, or 8.0, when in fact the player could have 7.9 or 8.9, when a pop to 8.1 or 9.1 has barely any change in salary.

Agreed! So this mean that regular training has slowed down 10% and secondary skill pops depends on luck.

They don't even depend that much on luck, if you're training a player long term. Yes, if you roll a single die, there's a lot of luck in that. But if you roll 50 dice, you're pretty much certain to get some 6's, some 3's, some 1's. Yes, you'll get more of some numbers than others, but it's very unlikely that you'll get 20 of one number, and 1 of one. Rolling lots of dice in games produces less luck than rolling the die once, by far. It'll even out.

Remember that "pops" are not what training does. Training raises sublevels. When that hits thresholds, it produces visible pops, but that's just the visible manifestation of a process. It's like birthdays. Just because today isn't my birthday, doesn't mean I'm not getting older.

*sob*

Yes but let's say you have a 5 or 6 low sublevels and after 2 seasons all of them are medium or high it would have a big impact on salary.

I understand little of the previous training system, but as I see it, part of the problem was with skills like inside shooting and having to play a guard out of position in a game to train in that area. Inside shooting for a Center is different than inside shooting for a guard--that is not to say guards can't learn post play. For the most part, however, I don't want or need to train my guards to shoot or position themselves like Centers; I want them to be able to make layups when they drive to the basket. That is a different skill set and I should not have to play my guards at the Center or forward position to "train" them to shoot a layup inside. The same holds true for inside defense, although less of a complaint here--good defensive technique doesn't vary as much; however, I want my guards to be able to defend other guards inside not learn to defend a post player; those skills aren't learned by playing out of position in a game in order to become eligible for the skill set--that is pure nonsense; same is true for having to play big men outside to train outside defense; an unnecessary distraction that adds nothing to the game for me.

And except for the economic issues--which are lost on me anyway, I'm befuddled by managers complaining about unexpected improvement by a player on their team. What coach doesn't want to see improvement in all areas by any player? Again, I don't understand the training system as well as most, but if the new system makes the training results more realistic, I'm all for it.

Training IS on a guard was no problem in the old system, 1-on-1 and JS for forwards give loads of pops in ISIS.