BuzzerBeater Forums

So, which is the correct option?

Pressure trains Outside Defence as the main.
Inside Defence trains Inside Defence as the main.

Does this solve your problem?

Any additional options for any position is welcomed by me..

Ned - I dont think its about making the game easier but I have not played my best 5 in position other than in a PL game since i started playing...

So shall we all continue to set lineups using players that lack certain skills in key areas (and never train them) or play a jumbled line up that you hope is still strong enough to win and slowly add to the lacking skills on players before you can play them back in their preferred or more natural position...

I just want to be able to play my best 5 v someone elses best 5 every week....(in the right positions!)

I'd echo that sentiment. Players should be able to play from their position.

There was talk earlier about watching out for the new people -- isn't the current even harder for a new person?

Consider a player listed as a SG, who's skills are probably better suited towards being a SF. If a newer person is even able to grasp the concept that SG may not be the best position (even though he's listed that way) -- would they be able to grasp the concept of playing this one as a C/PF for a game to up inside scoring/rebound/whatever?

There are so many options and so many possible tweaks that no matter what is done with this system -- optimal training is still going to be difficult. I would imagine it best to allow the player to make the choice -- straightforward and simple.

If it's felt to be important enough to protect new people from training SB with guards -- don't make guards an option on those few stats. The weighting from height should be enough of an influence to deter consistent training in strange areas, I'd imagine.

The variety is what will make the game most interesting -- different players, used different ways. Why put a limit on how different the players can be? With the caps introduced from Potential, how much damage can really be done by allowing training to be more focused as long as there are checks and balances in place to keep things from getting out of hand?

Last edited by JimSardonic at 5/10/2008 1:34:43 AM

Having talked this over a bit with the rest of the team, here's I think the consensus:

It is intended that training cannot easily be perfect in BuzzerBeater, as much as I know many of you would like us to make that possible. Rather, every team is supposed to make a choice between ideal training and ideal game performance, and the best teams will end up choosing a happy medium which isn't really ideal in either.

So if you want your PG to get inside skills, you do have to do something, at least in a scrimmage, that will make it less effective.

However, I think you've correctly pointed out a flaw here that a SF doesn't really get to do anything special, and that's a mistake. Rather, it seems like there should be some SF-only training options created which give some inside and some outside skills, each less than you would if you trained just the one or the other. Does that sound like a reasonable compromise?

What about PFs?

It was just a "suggestion" Of course you can see that my roster is full of SF

It's a little bit OT but I've seen the salary of my SF comprared to the salary of a center with same skills (or better to say monoskill); I'm paying 6k/week more than the center ^_^"

Your roster is becoming one to envy.... my PG's seem to be calculated as SF's and I hope the outcome is that the training will be opened up more.

I really want to give anyone in my team passing not just PG/SG.... please tell me that this is not being unrealistic?!

SF options are fine because i guess we've all played Centers there in some games without witnessing major disturbance in performance....

Come on BB give us (me!) complete training autonomy!

Superfly Guy - President of Unlimited Training Options Federation (cheap plug)

Dear Superfly, have you seen the answer of Charles about potential? I think this is the end of our dreams to create excellent "small" players... Tell him something Mr. President

A modest solution:
-Keep the same format for training as it exists now, but allow the user to pick which positions get trained. Because that made no sense in text, here's an example.

Rebounding currently only has 2 training options: team and PF/C. Keep Rebounding with either 2 person or team training, but let the user pick which 2 players. For instance, the user could train rebounding on his SF and PF.

Perhaps a more modest solution would to allow a user to select either SG or SF to be the sole recipient of jump shot training; either C or PF to be the sole recipient of inside scoring training, inside defence training; either SG or PG as the sole recipient of outside defence training.

And to further help out SF trainers (including my nemesis) perhaps there could be a (few) new training option(s) geared at SF (and PF?) trainers that would train them in both inside and outside shooting, inside and ouside defense.

I might be getting ahead of myself, but just some food for thought.



Last edited by Dr. Fader at 5/10/2008 8:42:06 AM

I agree.. and anything that limits the growth of players with family names starting with K gets my vote!