BuzzerBeater Forums

The training system is not really challenging, there is noch much variation. You just have 3 trainees and play them 48min with a slow tactic and less than 10 players. nobody trains OD in two position, or uses the alternatives to off position training (like OD training at SF). Why? because they are not a valid alternative.

If you look at the different trainers you have around 4% more training effect per trainerlevel and peopl are paying for this. If you look at the positions you have 10% training decrease per position. That is too much.

There are interesting, complex and challenging parts of training (like crosstraining, elastic effect, what to train first and player builds) but the part that you have to train your player for the most part of his career at a position where he does not play at his best sucks (in my opinion)..

Its true sometimes it makes leads to very special tactics (like Patient with the SF trainee at C), but in other occasions it forces you to be very one dimensional.

my team for example it very balanced, it has a slight favor for insidetactics, but I could play outside tactics like Prince just as good. But because my SF trainees have to play at PG and are not very suitable in passing or shooting I can't really play outsidetactics at the moment and I am forced to play LI all the time. (it does work very good, but I would prefer a normal lineup)

I'll ask you the same questions I asked Joe. You don't have to answer, at this point I think its rhetorical but maybe you'll surprise me.

Guess, you mean these?

Key follow up questions:
Had BB never had this out of position stuff to begin with it, would that really mean you wouldn't have liked it?
IF they get rid of out of position will you quit?
If there was no out of position and they were suggesting to implement out of position, would anyone like that suggestion?
In a game where there was no out of position and say 60k users, do you think they would keep more than 5 of them if they suddenly implemented out of position training?

1) BB doesn't have out of position stuff only. You can easily train Centers by playing them at Center their whole life. You can do the same with PGs and SGs as well and there are thousands of people doing so.
But if you want to have well rounded players you either have to play them out of position OR train them with less than 100% of weekly possible training. I see a challenge there - you see a flaw.
I quit quite a few games where training was for dummies, yes.
Things that made training a lot easier considering out of position training are defensive switches and %es for training on position.

2) If they make training so easy it's going to be a non-brainer I'll not quit. I'm still here because of other people not because of the flawlessness of this game.

I'll not answer 3) and 4) because they are too theoretical.

Summarizing again:
I like training as it is: fast, not too fast. Challenging, but not impossibly difficult.

This is a managment game. Management takes time. So does training.

hey Karangula, I think you are right in a lot of points. Training should not be easy, banal and boring. Still I think there might be a way in between which combines the "trickyness" of out of position training with a more enjoyable game experience.

I would like to hear your opinion on this: (278239.1). It is more a theoretical discussion I don't mind if training stays like it is, but I wonder if this wouldn't be much more interesting, expecially for new users who come here to play basketball and want their players to have good stats and performances from the beginning..

Thanks for the replies. I think the right thing is to retain more users by having a better, more logical training system that reflects reality.

Wow. That has been my mantra for a long time. WELCOME to the club!

Last edited by Mike Franks at 4/24/2016 10:41:38 PM

BB doesn't have out of position stuff only. You can easily train Centers by playing them at Center their whole life. You can do the same with PGs and SGs as well and there are thousands of people doing so.
But if you want to have well rounded players you either have to play them out of position OR train them with less than 100% of weekly possible training. I see a challenge there -

This is a good point.
By creating a system where it is easiest to train players all day long in their natural position (where they best serve their team), the development of players who fit the traditional mold of their position happens more frequently.
Otherwise, everyone could just train a team of Lebrons. Of course, everyone still has the ability to train a team of Lebrons, but you just have to play less efficient lineups in order to get there. It's a trade-off.

It is not what you just said it is, not at all. It's addhock, half-wit, completley unrelated to the real game metagame nonsense. Saying what they are trying to do as if its what happened is just dishonest.

+1

BB doesn't have out of position stuff only. You can easily train Centers by playing them at Center their whole life. You can do the same with PGs and SGs as well and there are thousands of people doing so.
But if you want to have well rounded players you either have to play them out of position OR train them with less than 100% of weekly possible training. I see a challenge there -

This is a good point.
By creating a system where it is easiest to train players all day long in their natural position (where they best serve their team), the development of players who fit the traditional mold of their position happens more frequently.
Otherwise, everyone could just train a team of Lebrons. Of course, everyone still has the ability to train a team of Lebrons, but you just have to play less efficient lineups in order to get there. It's a trade-off.

It makes sense. Training Multiskillers would be too easy and Top-Teams could compete and train Lebrons easily. It makes most sense in case of Centers. But as Trainerman said, if you want to train a SF he doesnt play his position until he is 25. If you train a PG he has to play SG/SF a lot, without even aiming for B-Skills.

I think you are right - it should not be too easy to get these secondaries, but it doesn't have too result in such weird lineups. There is enough space for an in-the-middle solution.

No need to argue just from both extremes (everything like it is vs. no restrictions on training at all).