BuzzerBeater Forums

So because it would take longer to see a benefit here the concept should be dismissed?

Apologies. I misinterpreted you saying allow new managers to be competitive quicker

As being quicker next season, or the season its implemented, etc.

Not that, 2 real life years after its implemented... it then enables people to be quicker.

It was a phrasing thing.

I would have been less confused by the phrasing if you had said, "In the future, allowing new managers to be competitive quicker"

or, it simply requires too much coding and will cause too many ingame bugs and they dont have anyone that can handle it anymore.

I certainly think this is true. Which is why we won't see a massive change to training or the game engine.

However, if we're going to have a Utopian discussion, the suggestion that we can choose different training for different players is a good one.

What I would like to see is the ridiculous idea to allow training "out of position" be removed and instead allow people to train, for example, a Center in passing by playing him at Center, and equally, let a Point Guard learn Inside Defence at the Point Guard position. Without penalty.

or, it simply requires too much coding and will cause too many ingame bugs and they dont have anyone that can handle it anymore.

I'd disagree. i don't think nobody can do it. I think that Marin has more pressing issues and thus can't free up enough time to look into it.

Also, what would you want to change? the effectiveness of tactics? that is probably tampering with minor %. tamper to much, and suddenly you get a swing to other tactics. I personally feel as if most tactics are rather balanced atm. The supply of players to make certain tactics work, that is an entirely different story.

However, if we're going to have a Utopian discussion, the suggestion that we can choose different training for different players is a good one.

What I would like to see is the ridiculous idea to allow training "out of position" be removed and instead allow people to train, for example, a Center in passing by playing him at Center, and equally, let a Point Guard learn Inside Defence at the Point Guard position. Without penalty.

Just wondering here (clarify for me) Do you still want the length penalty to exit or not? Cause i find it only logical that a 220 cm guy learns rebounding a lot faster than a 178cm guy. So that is something i wouldn't like to see changed. Otherwise, we'll go back to the era where 178 cm guy's play at centre and 210 cm players play at the guard (in which the 178 cm guy outrebounds the 210 guy on a consistent basis, which is just unrealistic. If you want that penalty removed, then you might aswell not give the players a height. One field less to worry about, means less coding.)

Also, i'm somewhat divided about the without penalty thing: Here is why:

Pro's:
if you want a more complete player (cause that is what we are referring to here) then i somewhat like the punishment. It only goes for the offensif side of things, since you can move your defensif assignments around as you please. That means that you are trading in a poor performance offensifly for futur rewards (i kinda like that idea). It also means that the SF spot remains the hardest to train, instead of having everyone being able to play it (with some oddities towards the C and PG).

Contra's
The system is rather logic as it is now. In the NBA, a bigman willl have a harder time getting his range right (how many bigmen jack up 3's consistently and drain them consistently? they are rather rare) where as i don't see many guards getting a ball with their back towards the basket and then pulling of a skyhook (which i consider a Big man skill).



Don't get me wrong here. I feel that training needs a change. Problem is finding the right balance (as it is with all cases).