BuzzerBeater Forums

Why, why the sf is the only role that to grow should not play in his natural role? why? you explain me with your words because i just do not understand, please. This means that not watching the interest of training but the interest of the seller?

Why, why the sf is the only role that to grow should not play in his natural role? why? you explain me with your words because i just do not understand, please. This means that not watching the interest of training but the interest of the seller?

This is the way it has been implemented since season 1. Also, I believe I have read threads where BB-Charles has stated that SF training will not change. Having read that information, I built a training program that satisfied those criteria. I took a significant hit to my team in the short term in order to train quality SFs.

Now that the first of my trainees is about to blossom you want a complete paradigm shift? If you want to make a significant game change such as this, I would want some serious compensation. That or at least 4 seasons notice. A combination of the two would be even better.

I'm not sure what you mean about natural role. Every player in BB should be multi-skilled. I'm tired of hearing people who say you can have a great team with a 2 skilled centre or a 4 skilled guard. That's a load of crap. Perhaps you will get great team ratings but as we are finding out, the team ratings have serious weaknesses.

If you start down this road soon you will want single position training for PFs and SGs. How about passing training for centres? Are you telling me that centres never pass the ball? I would also want to train inside d for guards. Please give me that option, too!

If it ain't broke - don't fix it. That's my motto.

Strange reasoning. So according to you since you've sacrificed to create small forward from (congratulations for the great work done) now you should be able to sell goods to the detriment of those who start now? perhaps you've forgotten the training speed double? I sold everything I had at the roster, the one that I gave it my small forward and are not here to say that because I was having difficulty must all, quite the contrary I realized the absurdity of the thing and promote the idea in the forum suggestions, not in the bug's forum. I do not see how you who've committed so much as losing can "facilitate" your work already "well" started.

And do not talk to multiskill or monoskill, it's another thing as the small forward should be much more complete than any center or guard as it binds the two departments. it is clear that serve training in passing to c / pf and rebound for guards but
1) are not as indispensable as the defenses for sf
2) perhaps it is better to proceed by degrees can not find?

Then if you feel that it is better to get more out dollars at the expense of others ... bravo!

p.s. translation by translator of google, if you do not understand I am sorry

Last edited by Cholanka Avikola at 1/4/2009 9:36:09 PM

I think what's getting lost in this conversation, and which I think was a key point in the opening post in this thread, is that training SFs as SFs is more realistic than the current system. I.e., how do you train Scottie Pippen to be be Scottie Pippen? Do you make him play center a few games to get his post game better? Do you run him at the point to get him to pass better? The current system is pretty good for PGs and Cs. (Even though I centers need to learn to pass, too, or they couldn't play in, say, a Triangle Offense, passing skills for players on teams that rely on passing can be done as part of team training.) But SFs can only be trained either in a watered-down training mode (training 3 positions at once) or playing out of position, and that detracts from the realism of the training system, that some players get short changed only because they are versatile and play one particular position.

Changes can happen, good managers can adjust, especially if we're given, say, a full season or two heads-up on something like this so we can prepare.

Then if you feel that it is better to get more out dollars at the expense of others ... bravo!

Absolutely within the framework of the game.

This isn't Lake Woebegone.

Then if you feel that it is better to get more out dollars at the expense of others ... bravo!

Absolutely within the framework of the game.

This isn't Lake Woebegone.

Are you saying the children aren't all above average?!

and guards needs inside shoot etc. they learn such things but normally they don't need to play ;) In reality you see improvement of bench players who just got few minutes each game, often they are the one who learn the must, but here that it impossible.

The training here is far away from realistic, and to make a change who you like to see, and saying thats realisitc won't change anything and is a real bad argument. And it hits those players who use the system to train difficult to train players, which gave you probadly a bit lesss succes but you get paid off hen you selling then, thats what chuckd like to explain.

I think you have not brought a valid justification to say that it is not necessary. You say it is a bad argument to your personal interests, not because the game would work better or worse. You say that it is impossible to make it realistic, in my opinion is far from impossible

my personal interest, why?

I just could imagine, how others players thought who adept the system.

And when you say thats not a valid justification that it is necessary, i want to see one that it is necessary to beat the Sf trainers?

I think that:
if a training for the SF will be updated it might be a training that improve only SF and not a combination of other roles (like sf+pf or sf+pg+sg, etc...), so if a manager wish try this he know that can train only 2 or 3 guys, isn't?
at the end of the season the hypothetical manager have 2 good or excellent sf and a half wank!
And the other players?
wasting 1 or 2 season for the training of a single role isn't the better way for the PO's victory!
But we must try before say: Its a good change or isn't a good change.

(i'm a sf trainers!)

I think this could mean that instead of having options to train Inside Defense for either C, C/PF, or C/PF/SF, that there could also be an option to train only SF or perhaps SF/PF. This would help a team focus training for a SF any week, and it would also mean that if someone wants to train, say, a SF for Inside Defense, he could play the SG at SF, which would hurt his team less than playing the SG at C or PF.

I think that if this were the only sort of change that was incorporated, giving us the option of focusing training of SF rather than creating new types of SF-oriented training, that would be all that would be necessary to get the SFs trainin on par with other positions.