BuzzerBeater Forums

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!

I think that training should be distributed across all positions, with a focus on a particular one.

A SF focus would produce a distribution of: 5% 20% 50% 20% 5%

That is 1/2 the benefit would go to the SF, and 20% to the SG and PF and 5% to the PG and C.

A SG/SF focus could produce a 14 35 35 11 5 distribution
A SG focus could produce a 23 50 20 5 2 distribution
A PG/SG focus could produce a 40 38 14 6 2 distribution
A PG focus could produce a 57 25 11 6 1 distribution

The distribution for SF/PF, PF, PF/C and C are symmetric to the above.

The benefit of training would also take into account the skill trained. For example when training with a SF focus and ID skill, the C would benefit more than the PG, though both would benefit less than the SF.

The model behind this is that the coaching staff focuses on particular skills. All players are present in the practice sessions, and gain some understanding and will improve when they get the reinforcement of game play.

The position focus might change the training sessions some. If training JS with a focus on centers, it may be more on shooting from 10 and 12 feet, and the PG don't get so much benefit from this. If the focus is on the PG, then the shooting is from further out. The C get less benefit from this, because they have less opportunity to shoot from outside.

Note: if a player plays in more than one position, he gets training based on his best minutes.

what are you talking about ?

mind breaking it down more the explanation ?

sorry cant digest it

This is how I understand that it works now:

Let's say that you are training something like Outside Shooting.

You can train SG; PG/SG; SG/SF; or Team.

So if you train SG, players at SG get 100% of the training.

If you train PG/SG, players at PG get 50% of the training, and at SG 50% of the training. This is my guess, anyhow. Since you are training more players, each gets less benefit.

It might be that if you train 2 positions it is a little more efficient, and players get 60% of the training they would get if you trained SG. Or conceivably it could be 65% for SG and 55% for PG, since it would reasonable for OS to benefit SG a bit more than PG.

There would probably be a similar distribution for SG/SF.

For Team, it could be that each position gets 20% of the training that they would get for SG alone, since you can train 5 times as many players. Or it might be that there is a little bonus, since it may be more efficient to have everyone practicing their shooting, rather than two or 3 SG, with the other players simply shagging rebounds.

---

Here is what I am proposing:

For any training skill you can specify any of the following position focuses:

PG
PG/SG
SG
SG/SF
SF
SF/PF
PF
PF/C
C

But if you train a single position, all positions get some benefit. Currently, if you train SF, the SF gets 100% of the training. But I'm saying instead that if you trained SF, that the training would be distributed among all 5 positions, perhaps like:

PG 5%, SG 15%, SF 60%, PF 15%, C 5%

That is "SF" wouldn't mean train only "SF" and ignore totally the improvement of all players on the team, but rather it would be focused on SF with some benefit to the positions, especially to the positions that are most similar.

If you trained something like SG/SF then those positions would share the focus, but the other positions would still get some training.

ahhhh

now im shed with some light!

hmmmm not bad for that suggestion, ill try to think some too.

really thanks appreciate the effort you did for explaining further.

cheers!

but what i would like to ask is this, someone mentioned on other topics that our playing strategy doesnt have any effect on training,

ok, and if your present set up tells me, i would say whatever is the case let alone a player who make 48 minutes recieves training and the same level of training whether your the starter or the backup. am i right?

so how come before i bought 2 players who skills doesnt differ every much before they started training on my team but my starter seems to have more improvement or effective training as a result of the pops his getting compare to the backup.

because right now my backup isnt lagging behind big time but the gap can be seen which i cant think of any reason because the rule is 48 minutes. yet he develops slower. but the training regime is the same oh they are both all stars :D

im not saying he should be as equal as the starter but to be this behind is someting i always would like to ask.



Last edited by Shoei at 5/14/2008 12:24:50 AM

They should get the same amount of training.

Height has an effect on training speed, as does age.

There may be an effect based on other skills. The rules suggest that a player will improve skills related to others he already has faster.

And skills are actually real numbers. So a player might have a skill of 4.1 or 4.9 and be called "inept". When a player trains, his skill values increase, If it increased from 4.1 to 4.4 it would remain inept. If it increased from 4.9 to 5.2 it would become "mediocre" and have a green arrow.

The starter may have been closer to his initial pops.