BuzzerBeater Forums

Come on Mr Trainerman Im eagerly awaiting your contribution the the thread (264484.1)


Id love you to put forward the number priority and then justify it being the number one priority

Thank you all for your input. We will certainly think about changing the percentages (they are not set in stone) and we'll see how it goes. So far, I like the feedback.

Three position SG/SF/PF is 80% as fast as three position PG/SG/SF.

I very much appreciate that the programmers have continued to improve the training programming.

That said, there are still some illogical aspects. In your example above, the SG's and SF's are the same, and both are examples of three-position training. Yet the third position affects even the training of the same SG's and SF's by a full 20%. It is illogical that the same SG's and SF's being trained with one other position should be that different, or even different at all. They are the same SG's and SF's, and the number of players being trained is the same. Logically, only the third position should be affected.

Three position SG/SF/PF is 80% as fast as three position PG/SG/SF.

I very much appreciate that the programmers have continued to improve the training programming.

That said, there are still some illogical aspects. In your example above, the SG's and SF's are the same, and both are examples of three-position training. Yet the third position affects even the training of the same SG's and SF's by a full 20%. It is illogical that the same SG's and SF's being trained with one other position should be that different, or even different at all. They are the same SG's and SF's, and the number of players being trained is the same. Logically, only the third position should be affected.

That would like saying that Inside Defense should train as fast for C when doing PF/C two positions training than when training only C in one position training. That's how Buzzerbeater has always worked.

Actually, I disagree with that - the equivalent suggestion would be that inside defense for SF/PF would train the PF at the same speed as inside defense for PF/C. The intent of the suggestion is that a player should not receive a penalty for being "out of position" if he's training in a position that would be trained in the old training regimen. So with this proposal, inside defense for SF/PF would train PF at the same speed as normal two position ID, while the SF would receive training at the reduced speed.

My opinion on that is that the idea has merit and makes sense, but of course it then causes issues like in Hattrick's winger training where some minutes (minutes at winger) are more valuable than others (minutes at wingback). So in the ID for SF/PF scenario, training would first prioritize minutes at PF and then if 48 minutes are not reached and minutes at SF are available, it would then have to add those in with the reduced training speed. It makes things a little more complicated, and I suppose it's unclear whether the benefit in this case is worth the complexity.

Three position SG/SF/PF is 80% as fast as three position PG/SG/SF.

I very much appreciate that the programmers have continued to improve the training programming.

That said, there are still some illogical aspects. In your example above, the SG's and SF's are the same, and both are examples of three-position training. Yet the third position affects even the training of the same SG's and SF's by a full 20%. It is illogical that the same SG's and SF's being trained with one other position should be that different, or even different at all. They are the same SG's and SF's, and the number of players being trained is the same. Logically, only the third position should be affected.

That would like saying that Inside Defense should train as fast for C when doing PF/C two positions training than when training only C in one position training. That's how Buzzerbeater has always worked.

No, with all due respect that's not it at all. What I was remarking about was that SG plus SF plus Joe isn't equal to SG plus SF plus Fred. Why should Fred or Joe make any difference to the SAME SG and SF training? Either way, it is SG plus SF plus another position ... the SG and SF should be the same.

Training in Buzzerbeater depends first of how many positions you are training,

Right! And if two of the positions are SG and SF, why would it matter TO THEM who the third guy is? They are still the same. See?

Actually, I disagree with that - the equivalent suggestion would be that inside defense for SF/PF would train the PF at the same speed as inside defense for PF/C.

Exactly! Thank you! Either way, it is power forward plus one other. Logically it shouldn't matter to the power forward, but it does. That's illogical.

The intent of the suggestion is that a player should not receive a penalty for being "out of position" if he's training in a position that would be trained in the old training regimen. So with this proposal, inside defense for SF/PF would train PF at the same speed as normal two position ID, while the SF would receive training at the reduced speed.

Oohh, if I try to think about that smoke comes out of my ears. I wasn't comparing new to old training, and I wasn't trying to suggest how to fix it ... just that there are still some illogical parts to it.

I don't see why there can't just be simpler training.
(1) Manager trains whoever he wants in whatever skills he wants.
(2) Each player's caps apply just as now.
(3) Short men train faster in short man skills and tall men train faster in tall man skills, just as now.
(4) Better trainers train better than worse trainers, just as now.
(5) Training more guys at one time weakens the effect by spreading it out, just as now.
(6) In the same way, training more skills at one time weakens the effect by spreading it out. But here is the key: managers choose players to train, not positions, so minutes don't matter.

And really, "out of position" disappears, but short man has trouble learning tall skill, or tall man has trouble learning short skill, both remain, just as now.
I also have an idea how trainers level can be both easier to understand and more important, but I'll save that for another time.