BuzzerBeater Forums

Nothing is impossible. But you will have to make sacrifices. If your not go out on the TL and buy one instead. There is always an option open for you.

18-28yo 7'0-7'4 PA in PG position gives a 0.42 increase in skill.
Pressure for PG: 0.24
JS for forwards : 0.16

I bought a pretty good trainee this season and i am starting with his outside skills as he is pretty bad on both ends. 48 mins in scrimmages dont cost me that much tbh.

Above, Manon argued that 18-28YO 7"4 in PG will increase is passing skill by 0.42.
Then after confronting him with facts, he changed his claim.
Did you noticed that?
I hope you understand that it cannot be true that a 18YO will be as easy to train as a 25YO and surely not 28YO.

id have no problem to traing bigmen in outside skills.. i posted some lovley players already.. 500k and 2-3 seasons of outside training and they belong to the nicest players all over bb. but the problem is theyve been monoskilled first because thats what the NT wants.. and i dont want to pay 200k a week to improve a center in outside skills so theyll always stay raw players with wasted talent hopping from team to team.

i agree that the formula is what has to be changed. they shouldnt earn more than the best team can afford.. in the nba you cannot have 5 max contracts and thats fine.. but you would wanna have at least 2. so make the max salary something like 250k for centers aswell as for guards and forwards.

maybe youve already taken care of that by changing the training speed.. we will see in a few seasons but until then please adept the 350-400k contracts.. they are the best players right now in the game and nobody wants em?

I think that maybe if one could choose his secondary training skill that would have been changed.
Maybe then users will try to use the secondary skill for some not-traditional skill more often.

Since you actually presented an intelligently-reasoned rationale for a "players rather than positions" methodology, I actually feel like this response won't be going to a brick wall.

The first point I'd argue is that "just 48 minutes" might not be a good enough standard -- allowing a team to train all three of their trainees in a throwaway scrimmage each week would make it far simpler than it should be. There should be some choices required in determining whether to train or not, and having a scrimmage game take care of an entire week's training just doesn't sit well with me. Then of course, a natural suggestion is that each game can be used for 48 minutes worth of training (plus any OT minutes), but outside of the guys who play 48 minutes in a game, that gets complicated.

I wonder if a better solution may be to allow any training type at any position, but perhaps with a bonus if the player is in the "right" position or a corresponding penalty if an extremely different one. Or maybe just a different allocation of the skills? For example, if you choose passing, for PG, there is a big increase in passing plus the regular, smaller secondary increases in the related skills. If you choose it for C, the passing will grow less, but maybe with bigger increases in handling and driving. It'd have to be balanced out so that a skill's primary position is always the best overall in terms of benefit, but that out of position training is close enough to be a valid choice. Of course, it'll never catch on, either with the "But I have to have 19-19-19 inside guys" crowd or the "no, a player without great potential trained perfectly is worthless!" crowd, but I can hope. ;)

Well, the general conception that actually leads to the 'problem' as stated by the original poster is that an inside players needs only 3 out of 10 skills, while everybody does agree that the outside plays need 6 out of 10 skills. Just compare the skillspread average trained guard with the skillspread of an average trained center and you'll notice this clearly.

Why doesn't anybody challenge this culture instead of calling for changes, since that 3 vs 6 reasoning doesnt make sense? Maybe the possibility to change is already there, but overseen.

It's not that hard to train players out of position, since you actually can keep playing the player at his natural defense whereas only his offense position counts for training minutes. There has always been a tradeoff by short term and long term gains and losses, a game where you can do both at the same time continuesly will mostly be too easy and quickly become boring (imo). If you'd like us to make each player trainable at whatever position you want, we would completely remove the challenge of creating a top class player. A challenge in which the best managers will succeed, and others may not.

Great answer. We don't need a piss easy game!

Amen!!