BuzzerBeater Forums

I had thought that the extra ten percent penalty was for the second step and further away, but looking at the training page and re-reading it does make it look like pressure for SF would be at 70% speed vs. pressure for PG. I think it would certainly be comparable to two position training (without the extra benefit of other players being trained), but I haven't checked the training speed analysis in a while.

Can you explain how it's better now to train 9 players rather than 3? Is there something I missed?

I think it would be comparable to two position in that instance. It sure will make adding a passing pop or two on a nearly finished big man a lot less painful. It may take longer but you can still attempt to win league games that way. It's tough to take the highest paid guy on your team and play 48+ minutes at a different position and be competitive.

I think there is something wrong with the percentages. For example three position training for pressure (sg/sf/pf) and two position training (sg/sf) and one position (sg) is all at 80 percent. Should the three position and two position be training be slower than the one position training? or am just not looking at it the right way?

Training at Sf is at 70 percent for pressure also much slower than two and three position training.

Last edited by Lolo Smithz at 10/22/2014 10:12:20 PM

I think there is something wrong with the percentages. For example three position training for pressure (sg/sf/pf) and two position training (sg/sf) and one position (sg) is all at 80 percent. Should the three position and two position be training be slower than the one position training? or am just not looking at it the right way?

Training at Sf is at 70 percent for pressure also much slower than two and three position training.

No, there's no problem. Single position training at SF is 70% as fast as single position training at PG. Three position SG/SF/PF is 80% as fast as three position PG/SG/SF. All of the other factors that affect training speed (age, elastic effect, trainer level, minutes, etc) will still apply; the 80/70/60/50 is simply an additional "out of position" modifier.

Thanks for the explanation I was reading it the wrong way. Much appreciated.

I would say, that the new feature would be more balanced with the previous system if the decrease of training speed was a bit lower. For example:

PA:
PG - 100%
SG - 90%
SF - 80%
PF - 70%
C - 60%

As it was said before - training PA at C position is now close in terms of effectiveness to training whole team but giving more freedom to the manager. As if you are training 3 guys at C position you have to give them 48 minutes a game - that reduces chances of wining the game (stamina) not to mention fouling out. Training same 3 players PA in a regime for whole team you can play them at PF/C positions, use substitutions and not worry about fouling out for the gain of something like 5%-10% of effectiveness. If it was 60% of normal one position training speed than the gap rises to 15%-20% which makes it worth taking into consideration.

At the moment I would say that hardcore trainers will still train PA at PG position for big man and people who are thinking about winning games rather that training optimisation will go for game shape or training PA for whole team - making new feature rarely used.

Yeah I think the penalty is too big, centers (tall players) are already training slower in guard skills because of the height, why punish them twice this way? I'd say something like a 5% decrease per position would be better.

I also like the new training regimen like outlet passing, seems realistic and balanced. Another idea could be to have tall players slowcap faster at guard skills while training at the same speed. This way you can still make them more balanced quickly without them getting very strong at it, seems realistic and balanced too.

I agree with you.

if i train a C in OD or a PG in IS (examples) they suffer the height effect, if i want to train them in the right position i've to pay a lot (40/50% more) just to be competitive in normal gamea... a slighter balance probably meanings easy way to train Forwards, for sure, but IMO a 75% effect not linked to "far position respect the standard" can be the best solution.

This new update in training are very confusing !!!
If you put procentage on new types of training than make it right, and clear to all.
Example:
pressing :
1. position P (should be basic fastest training =100%)
2. B (80%)
3. SF(70%)
4. PF (60%)
5. C (50%)
6. P/B (???) - is it 50% or 75 % or more or less from basic training on position P ??? What is faster to train -pressing on position C (50%) or pressing for P/B ?
If you want to make changes than explain them clear to all players-this procentage you wrote in training updates means nothing this way !