BuzzerBeater Forums

Great idea... it can also be implemented with a hard-cap for a skill growth (free pops until respectable... then only normal training).

i like it :P

i like it!

i think it could be great if we could choose a team-training, in a skill not trained (for example: i'm training pressure for PG/SG, i choose rebounds as team-training), with a very low % of improving in that skill...so we could choose where extra pops will appear...

Also that's an idea ;)

Maybe 3 pops per season is too much, it could be ok also 1 pop per season for the youngest players in the very low skills (lvl 1-2). After some lvl it will be impossible to have an extra pop. You can take as example Datkovic, he has lvl 1 in shot block, with this idea maybe he will have 1 pop in skill shot block in one complete season.
We could also related this pop to the minutes played, including or not the National team matches, everything could be discussed

I don´t like it. And also I am sure, that this won´t happen. BB´s are slowing the training down and this one is not corresponding with their strategy.

i like this suggestion
also the game will be more realistic

All training regimes already affect 3 to 4 skills, what more do you want?!

I also second JP on the suggestion that if people want to balance the skills of their players, they should balance their training regimes.

Or have training affect all players to some extent. You could still specify a focus position PG PG/SG SG SG/SF SF SF/PF PF PF/C or C,

So for example, if you trained shot blocking for SF, the SF would receive the most training, with the SG and PF somewhat less, and the PG and C a small amount. The focus position would receive less training than under the current system, so that overall, training might be slowed. In addition, training for a position where a skill is less utilized might be less. So training shot blocking/PG would be less benefiicial to a PG than shot blocking/C would be to a C,

If I understand the GE, a player's role is not locked into a strict position. When your C pops from 3, he isn't really playing as a C for that play. And your PG might get stuck defending down low. So if the training is emphasizing a particular skill, why shouldn't all players acquire at least some amount?

I don't want to go with the idea as proposed, but I don't want to shoot it entirely either.

I don't know about others, but seeing skills like atrocious and pitiful does not invite to train on those skills since it will take a lot of time to even get them to mediocre, which isn't that great either, but will be a start to train a good player...
Therefor, I'd say, the idea is good for atrocious up to awfull skills to raise with an amount of playing minutes (so not real random pops, players do need to play to get better). After all, it is hardly believeable that a player who spend like 500 minutes on the field is still atrocious in passing or jump shot for example. However without the proper training, it will not be so unreal that a player can not get past inept... The closer the player gets to inept, the longer it will take to get better without training.

This does soften the low peaks in player's skills, which not 1 manager will be willing to train (e.g. if you have 3 centers, 1 with atrocious passing, 1 with atrocious handling and 1 with atrocious outside defence, I hardly imagine you will be training these 3 skills for a whole season to get them to awfull, where you can make them al much better in the inside skills during that time)
It also might encourage managers to train the low skills instead of focussing on the mediocre to higher skills when they have a few players with the same low skills, since they will improve a little quicker then when they would be past inept already. Where managers might not want to train 2 full seasons to get them to mediocre, they might now get this done in less time, and decide they want to spend it on it.

I didn't explain my idea very well (or maybe you were responding to the original idea of skill improvement not tied directly to training).

I would expect that teams would still train their inside players in mostly inside skills. But what I was suggesting that you would pick a training regime and a position focus. What would be different from the current system is that some training would go to all positions played.

Let's say that you were training SB.

If you trained SB - C the training might be distributed:

58%, 25, 10, 5, and 2 (for positions numbered 5 to 1)

So even your PG would get a little bit of improvement in SB.

If you trained SB - C/PF the distribution might be:

35%, 35, 18, 9, and 3

SB - PF: 25, 40, 20, 10, 5
SB - PF/SF: 16, 31, 31, 14, 8
SB - SF: 10, 20, 40, 20, 10
...
SB - PG: 2, 5, 10, 25, 58

Note that SB - PG might not be as effective as SB - C, simply because PG can't utilize SB as much, and thus don't get as much in-game reinforcement.

yeah it's a great idea

succodifrutta is the first