BuzzerBeater Forums

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.

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?!

If you've seen my draftees, you wouldn't need to ask.

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?

What can I say - I played by the rules to create a situation where my team would be successful in the long run. I had to make sacrifices in the short run in order to do that. I expect that the game will be stable enough to allow me to do that.

We started BB at almost the exact same time. You could have done exactly the same thing. Instead you chose a path that allowed your team to be more successful in the short term. That was your choice.

Now you want to complain that you can't afford a balanced SF? In fact - you want to change the rules to make it better for your team, at my expense (and the expense of all other SF trainers who followed the rules). Sorry, but I'm going to take exception to that.

The good news is - all other teams are in the same boat as you. So there really is nothing to complain about.

i want to say .... i have a lot of sympathy for this position.. and we BBs have agonizing discussions weighing this generic position (and really it is a generic position that applies to every situation where we want to change the rules) against the benefit to the community of having a new set of rules/procedures/whathaveyou.

each case i think is different as the cost and benefits change from situation to situation.

in general we try to make the announcements ahead of time so that people have some time to readjust their strategy (i.e. sell all their SFs and stop training them) but even that isnt perfect as obviously people will think.. oh ... cheaper SFs are coming, i should just wait...so demand goes down and down goes the price.

in general in this case, although i think it is undeniable that is is harder to get a "good" SF, meaning equivalent skill levels at all the skills one thinks SF should be "good" at. I will say that I don't think the fact that "good" SF costs too much is really a problem... in fact its a self balancing feature. The fact that being a SF trainer is possible is the direct result of SF being hard, cause the prices are higher for that reason.. and in general that is going to be the case as the market regulates itself... and as long as the market is liquid enough the proper equilibrium should be found... and the challenge of the game is to know what that equilibirum is so you don't pay too much or sell for too little.

maybe it makes BB a more interesting game to have the cost of training a good player at a certain position be different than the cost of another?

isnt part of what makes the NFL interesting that it is harder to get a good QB than it is to get a good LB? and don't good QBs get paid more?

I know the NBA is less like this and the "best" players at each position get paid about the same.... but for most sports its not true.

I dont know... i think its an interesting argument to have... but that is where the argument should be, how is it better for the game... not for your team.. but for the game... to have "good" SFs cost the same as every other position. Just cause they will be cheaper doesn't make it better i don't think.

EDIT: SOME OF THESE STATEMENTS MIGHT BE MISLEADING.. PLEASE READ (66639.86)


Last edited by BB-Forrest at 1/7/2009 9:54:24 PM

I think that if one has come to have a hypothetical value sf 10 without specific training for sf, with specific training can only increase its value. I do not see any possibility of loss for coaches sf in my little thought, because I spent most of my career to coach sf and certainly I do not like to have a loss but I believe that the comprehensiveness of the game would improve much.

started to read this tread just minutes ago, and stopped reading after 2 of the 3 reactions you got where not in your favor.

Truth is I am too tired to read it all. But I can say a few things of my own:

yes I somethimes find it hard to pick a training for the past week, especially if something went wrong in the trainingminutes (which happens a lot). So I too sometimes yearn for more options.
I can't say if it will be better or worse, I also think that will only be clear after a while.

What I do know is that either way it evolves, it will be the same for everyone.

I don't think the training system is bad right now, so I'm not sure it needs changing. I do know that a change could possibly improve it , and that there always is a small chance it is not improved, or even gets less good.

But I am in favor of not changing it.
Here's my reasons: since it is good (or if you like then read: not bad). And changing it will affect players, and therefor managers. Managers who build up something in this system will get an advantage or disadvantage if something changes, this can not be undone, in some cases the effect is bigger, in others the effect is so minimal it isn't noticed, but one way or an other, managers will get either an advantage or a disadvantage out of a change. So since it is already good, I don't think BB should hand out advantages and disadvantages, depending on the choices made by managers already.
Imagine a manager for example who put a lot of money and time into training small forwards, who just achieved his goal and will now start working his other players. Imagine the loss he would lead by this change. The other way around, in the same league there was this manager who trained centers all the time, and can now easely switch to sf. I think we both know which one is going to drop out of the league next season. this example is too black and white, but still I hope I explained why I favour doing noting.

and finally:

Sure, one can train Pressure for PG-SG-SF and Inside Defense for SF-PF-C… Have you tried it? Do you know how long it takes to see a pop? Five to six weeks is not out of the picture, even on young players.

yes, I actually did this a lot, and still am doing it, and I like the results as well.
I am a manager who chose not to focus on 1 position and then sell excess players and by players for my other positions, but I try to bring my whole team up in a balanced way. And so far I seem to have managed to do that. And as long as it works, I choose to keep doing that, because I find it more fun.
In Hattrick I am forced to pick 1 training and keep it for seasons in order to be able to make enough money, and I don't like it. So as long as I can have variable training, and keep up, I prefer to play that way, and I am thankfull BB isn't that 1 sided as Hattrick. I believe BB gives us the option to play it like hattrick, and seldom change training , create 1 sides monsters and sell them, but I also think they left the option to create a balanced team on your very own. TL will not suffer since sooner or later you'll need fresh guys anyway.
It takes a while longer for your players to pop, but you have more players popping.

Try to see it from more points of view, not just that 1 theory you (and many with you) think it needs to be. We are granted options by BB. Don't kill the other options to optimise 1 of the options so the others can't compete anymore.
the less obvious it is what to do, the better all options are balanced, and the more variety there will be. If there is an aspect that you find difficult, it is the same for all. The ones who choose to opt for that difficult way will have their reward when they sell their fruits.
I'm not doing anything special, I don't feel I am sacrificing a lot, and still I have a well balanced team.
Every 1 sided change, like improving training for just 1 position, might bring imballance, so I truly don't favor it.

Don't forget: small

Don't forget: small forwards are in a position which is unique. Unlike centers and PG, and often SG and PF, SFs can almost always benefit along with any training you perform, so they can get a lot more training then the other players in a team, but you'll have to sacrifice speed on the others. That is called options...


(seems I had spend my space before I was done lecturing :\ )

;)

I intented it to be a line of 10.

I don't know what got into me.

sorry about that.

in short: I think nothing needs to change.

In how many weeks your trainees make a pop in ID or Od when you train three roles
If your response is five or six weeks it's time to make a change!


@Dr. Jan Itor I want the card number 2 of this commettee :P

re: changing this now would harshly affect those that have trained SF

I dont get this, training for SF's is a great way to lose games. If your losing games you're costing your team, so whatever you might make up in transfer fees for a specialized player is offset by the cost of training that player.

Plus, if you've trained SF's your well ahead of the game, and the new training will allow you to take those players to the next levels while becoming more competitive.

Having a balanced SF shouldn't only be possible by choosing to not play your strongest team. How is does that help the game when one of your opponents might get an easy game cause your playing a PG at Center?

One of the great things of BB over HT was that there was motivation to succeed and aim to win all your games, and training was set up to promote multi-skilled players. Currently, this goes against both of those.

Another major problem is it promotes a narrow set of tactics. Most teams either play a guard at SF and choose and outside attack, or play a big man at SF and choose an inside attack.