BuzzerBeater Forums

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).

One possible solution could be to remove training positions, but introduce penalties on certain skills in combination with skill levels.

Let's say I want to increase one of my players passing, which is absolute 0. In such a case, I think we should be able to get 100% regardless position.

If, on the other hand, I want to train a guy who is pretty solid in passing (like 15), it would require him to play PG to get 100%.

This could be pretty complicated for all the skill-position, age, height, whatever constellations, though.

But IMO we should start by changing the pace of training depending on skill level. Training from 0-1 should not be the same as going from 19-20