BuzzerBeater Forums

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.

I think by allowing to train all skills at any position you made a big step forward.

but I think that the training as it is, is too complicated for new managers and the new feature makes it even harder to understand what training is best suited. it is a trap for new managers, because for them training at the natural position with a very harsh decrease in effectiveness is not a good option at all. to the contrary playing your talented centers at C position and train them at the same time would be much more attractive.

the new feature also doesn't adress the fact, that training in combination with tanking is most effective, at all.

first i want to adress some statements

BB-Marin:

In basketball terms, think of it as a mindset issue; centers just aren't as adept at training playmaking routines as playmakers. It doesn't come naturally to them as it does to the point guards. And now I'm sorry we didn't include a similar explanation in the news post

BB-Marin i understand what you are trying to say, but this is already addressed with the heighteffect on training. if you want to increase the effect, don't do it with decreased training by position, but with increasing the negative effect caused by the height of a player.

a center who plays PG won't train passing faster than a center who trains passing in his possition (outlet passes, passes from the low/highpost to open shooters or cutters)

GM-perpete:

That would [be]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.

I think what you said would not be a negative thing. if you could use two positions as legit training positions, you could play your trainees like a normal starter in league games. you don't have the problem of fouling out and nonreasonable substitutions. and you increase the fun to play your young talents, because they could already be useful.
i don't believe that playing a player 48min/per is something that the programmers wanted.

instead you should think about this:

suggestion:
1) choose 3 players you want to train OR 6 players you want to train a 60-70%

2)they have to play 48+min per week.

3) two options:
a) it doesn't matter where they play these minutes, but you increase the height effect on players
b) the players are trained according to the position they played at (similar to now)
insideskills are trained 100% at C/PF and 90% at other positions
outsideskills are trained 100% a PG/SG and 90% at other positions
1on1 (and Jumpshot?) is trained 100% at SG/SF/PF and 90% at other positions

4) caps, trainer effect, etc. stay the same

so you have 3 aspects who would improve the training experience.
1) young players can be useful in lower league games while training
2) no frustration because of silly substitution patterns and fouling out
3) both options (normal training and offpositions training) would be used. the latter for U21 and NT players

Last edited by jonte at 11/21/2014 8:10:17 AM

i don't believe that playing a player 48min/per is something that the programmers wanted...

instead you should think about this:

suggestion:
1) choose 3 players you want to train OR 6 players you want to train a 60-70%

2)they have to play 48+min per week.

Making them play 48+ minutes still carries forward one of the illogical aspects of training as it is currently constituted. You are also training positions instead of people, still the most illogical aspect of all.

sry i missed a word there. i don't want them to play 48min/per game anymore.
instead they can play like a normal starter (at C and PF for example)

but not all players who played are getting trained. you have the possibility to select 3 players (at the trainings site). those 3 players train if they get enough minutes.

i don't want to give the possibility to train players that don't play in games at all. thats why i kept the 48+ min. but it doesn't matter (in version a) ) at what position they play those minutes. -> you train people not positions.

then i made a weaker version of my suggestion with version b). in this scenario you are right in a way. you still select three trainees like in version a), BUT these trainees have to spent there 48+ minutes either at a bigmen position or at a guard position to get 100% training. but because there a two positions, you can play them as a normal starter. it is a combination between positionbased and playerbased training.
(however the penality for osition training is much smaller)




Last edited by jonte at 11/22/2014 6:18:05 AM

I think that it is very important for BB to increase the incentives of training. IMHO, managers who invest heavily in training are more attached to their teams and more likely to stay longterm users (and view ads, buy supporter and Utopia teams, etc.). I think that it would also decrease the number of players who do things like daytrade, increase the number of players on the TL, and you will probably also see a greater variety of builds available on the TL and make it easier to play non-inside tactics.

My suggestion would be to decrease the number of minutes needed for optimal training. If you want to single position train you have play guys for the entire game in order to get 48 minutes. Why not decrease to something like 30-32 minutes. This would allow players to train 4 players a week. You could start 3 different players at one position and them up with a 4th player.

This would give more incentive for players to set more realistic lineups and allow players who train good players have a little easier time competing. It would also make it easier to give players out of position training as you could play a trainee out of position for one start and at their best position for second game and still be in good GS.

The new additions don't really change the fact that if you want to create the best possible players you need to play them out of position to get the quickest training so that you can put the most possible skill points on them.