BuzzerBeater Forums

maybe you are right.

a very simple version of this would just expand on the idea that was implemented two seasons ago. just limit the training decreases so they are as big as the trainer lvl differences. the rest stays at it is.

f.e. PG Training
PG = 100% = lvl 6 Trainer
SG = 94% = lvl 5 trainer
SF = 92%?? = lvl 4 trainer
PF = 88% = lvl 3
C = 84% = lvl 2

(the number are just guessed)

keep additional stuff, like 2 Pos training etc, if you like. although I think it made it very complicated, especially two position Pressure on a position other than PG+SG. its really not easy to understand.

no big changes. but it makes the options with reduces training speed more interesting. with 92% training speed, the percentage of managers who train OD for bigmen at PG or SG and managers who train at SF but with a small decrease in training speed would even out i guess.

but you would still would start your trainee only one time a week and he will play 48minutes in this game. This excludes him from all statistics etc. and he is not really a help for your team. this is something which I never really liked. (how much fun is it to see a SF performing at his natural position one time a week in a private league? see..)

This would be easier. I still like change 4) very much. the camp is independent of this.

The main difference is that this would be a real alternative, compared to the increased training speed options we have now and the system would be much easier to understand.

/edit: note that I still prefer the first proposition for discussed reasons.

Last edited by jonte at 4/20/2016 10:27:23 AM

Maybe it was explained bad in the first post, so I will try again.

This is the idea descriped in point 2. in my original post.

3-step training setup:

1. Choose which 3 trainees you want to train.(Optional: Choose 6 Trainees for reduced training speed)

2.Choose a training regime:

Pressure for a) Guards b) Guards + SF (90-95%*)
Passing a) Guards b) Guards +SF (90-95%)
Dribbling a) Guards b) Guards +SF (90-95%)
Outside Attack a) Guards b) Guards +SF (90-95%)

Inside Defense: a) Bigmen b) Bigmen +SF (90-95%)
Inside Scoring: a) Bigmen b) Bigmen +SF (90-95%)
Rebound: a) Bigmen b) Bigmen +SF (90-95%)
Shot blocking: a) Bigmen b) Bigmen +SF (90-95%)

Jump Shot: a) Forwards b) Wings c) Guards
1on1 a) Forwards b) Wings c) Guards

3. Gaining Minutes
Let your trainees gain minutes at one of the positions you chose in point 2.. They get full training when they get 48 minutes at one of the positions you chose.

____

This way you can
- play your Bigmen Trainee/ Guard trainee at SF for off position trainee at 95% training speed.
- train your SF at his original position at reduced speed or at SG, PF for full training
- train 6 players or 3 players
- just train off position as you did before
- train two trainees in your training game or 3 trainees if you train with reduced speed.

* training speed

I get what you are saying , Ijust think it is complicated for user and developer to make it.
Simpler to just get rid of % penalty in current system and/or lower it.

that is kind of what I described in the alternative option 2b. I would be happy about this too. as long as you can train the B-skills of your bigmantrainee or your guard at SF for a small increase (>90% training speed) I would be fine with it.

but the 48minutes thing is something else that is bothering me. and simply adding more multi-positions would not fix it, because you could just train 6 players at the same time then.

I think the idea of choosing 3 trainees makes sense if you think about it. You tell your coach and your players which players will have individual training with the coach this week. they train with him, but they only get better if they get to practice their new learned skill in a real game situation (there for 48minutes at a position)

I would prefer simplified as-

pick the guys you want trained.
Pick the skill they train in.
If htey get 48 they are trained

would be nice, but I think the developers don't want to abolish the idea of offposition training completly.

However, this is just an idea for a simple fix. If there are enough resources or not and if this idea is progressive is something the developers have to decide. I just want to get some opinions of the managers if they would be happy with such a system and if they think it is reasonable.

I really hate this. My favorite trainee is 26 years old. he hast a TSP of 129.

last time he played his position was at age 19. since then I see stuff like this

Private League: at SF

16-29
3-7 3Pt
8 Rebound
3 Assist
3 Steals
1 Block
37 Points

League Game: at PG
4-17 FG
0-7 3Pt
9 Rebound
3 Assist
3+ TO

he only plays 1 time a week, while sitting at the bench the whole time. Its kind of frustrating...also my PG has to play SF for him and isnt much good at this either...

/edit: I was frustrated, so this post turned out like this. but still imagine you have an Andrew Wiggins-like talent and if you want to train him, you have to play him at PG and let rubio start at SF.

Last edited by jonte at 4/20/2016 3:55:20 AM

My take on this:

BB will probably want to keep Position-training, since it's part of the fundamentals of the game.
But I propose the following way to new and improved BB-training imo.

* Availability
Make all form of training available for all positions and drop the trainingspeedloss(at least lower the effect) due to position.
Example: Lets make Pressure available for Centers, centers are usually very tall and gets a little loss in trainingspeed in "guardskills" anyway.

* Positions
You can choose "1,2,3,4 or team(5)" when it comes to positions, but you can select PG,SG and C for "passing" if you desire. Trainingspeed reduces as usual with more positions selected!

* Osmosis?
Give players a (very?)small portion of the selected training even if they played in other positions.
This way your starters, benchplayers all get a little bit of training. They still need to play their minutes to get training. Much like in Hattrick.

* Drop 1pos?
To limit "out of position training" even further, BB could opt to get rid of the "1pos training". This will force managers to select atleast two positions, but also train MORE players. Making it easier to play players in their right position.
Perhaps a slight increase in trainingspeed needs to be added... So players can get to the same level as with 1pos now.
My thought is that many managers will chose to play their two starters more then 48 minutes over the week, sacrificing one or even two trainingspots to get better results in league- and cup-games since the loss of training is not as significant as before.
I'm still pondering this last suggestion, it appeals to me, but I have not thought about it too long to be sure where I stand.

- More flexible training and tactical flexibility in lineups to the people!

Just keep current system.

Just because others are better at training/buying players, doesnt mean we need changes. You cant have everything... So either sacrifice training or keep training on "wrong" position.

I personally dont have a major problem with the training system, but I have suggested 1 minor thing, that is, a training camp (probably in the last week of the season) to train players.

Why? Well the "off-season" should be a time when players can improve their game faster than normal, you can see this in the NBA in some cases, someone puts in work during the off season and improves drastically, whether it's free throws, defense etc.

Perhaps at a cost (100k/150k/200k/250k etc per player/position/type of training or intensity etc - Perhaps more expensive = more probability of pops, from a range of 1 to 5 pops or so - 5 pops is a lot, yes i know)

For one thing, the free throw ability of many players is deplorable (apart from the elites), as is the stamina.
So someone can train this in camps maybe to give their player an advantage with high FTs/Stamina.
Could also train the other skills as well of course.

I think while slightly speeding up training (probably adds about 1-1.5 seasons of training on top of the already trained attributes if a 21 year old was in a training camp every season).

This would add a lot of strategy to training and also financial development, saving money for these camps.
benefits? Well U21 could become more competitive. Maybe a HOFer who had weaker starting skills than someone else may not get discarded and he could catch up.

I think a problem as well as that the gap between "graduating" from U21s until hitting the NT is way too long. Shouldnt take 7+ years? To become a NT player.
It would add a new dynamic to the game, younger elite players, better NTs, better players on a whole basis.

As for inflation, I think this would improve the number of high quality players around, if there's a lot of high quality players around, then less money will be thrown around since there is less competition for a large pool compared to a smaller pool of talent.

Obviously my suggestion may have to be tailored slightly, to ensure the system cannot be abused (i dont think it can, since this would require long term investment into trainees) but I do think my general idea could be effective.