BuzzerBeater Forums

Because if it were that easy, everyone would do it and it wouldn't be worth doing any more.

Currently, the extra thought required to training SFs is rather nicely rewarded (over time). I don't actually care what position the extra thought is required, but it is good game design that it is required somewhere and SF actually seems the most sensible position to me.

Also two-position training does not yield half the skill up, that's incorrect. If you want decent estimates on training, search for the Coach Parrot thread, download the spreadsheet and study the calculators.

Although you do have to play your SF trainees at SG and PF, you also can still play them at SF in key games, those are the weeks you train Jump Shot or Outside Shooting with Wingmen training.

I might also suggest a more holisitic approach to training that sees training and tactics as parts of the same equation - and understand that both combined can offer you a better range of available tactics, more favourable mismatches on court at SG, SF and PF that add up to more wins per season for less wages, thus more arena revenue, etc., more profit per week, faster expansion possibilities and so on and so on.

SF training rocks, precisely because it's so bloody awkward that most can't be bothered.

Yeah I know a 2 position training is about 70-80% of 1 position training. The thing is that right now few people doing SF training cause PG or C are more efficient for training purposes. Even then you don't get a SF that's as valuable to the team as guards or center. So I disagree that everyone would do it because SF would still be inferior. There shouldn't be any implementation such that guard, forwards, or centers have an unequal advantage, right now guards and centers (putting salary topic aside) are balanced give or take but SF is inferior so something needs to be done to make it more equal and its clear that the training method is the cause of it.



Last edited by Coach_Gil at 3/10/2011 9:57:16 AM

I don`t remember who said in this forum: The people that whant to change SF training are not the ones who are training SFs, are the one who are not trainig them and want to do it in the easy way.

I think it resumes it preaty well.

Exactly, I'm forced to put one of my guys at PG simply cause I can't train him at anything eficient in SF

I was thinking of getting supporter exactly for this too. I have 3 players training to become a SF. As my trainees are my best players, even better than my players in the position of PG and SG, i was planing to let them play all toguether in PO. I have no idea of how it will work so i would like to experimient it before PO, the only way of doing it is in a private league if i don´t want to lose trainement before PO. Te problem is that i thik it can be a good surprise factor to go for PO with a team that my league have never seen, defensively the tree of them playing toguether as PG, SG and SF can be an inside and outside wall for my rivals. If i try this in PL it would not be a surprise cause they can see the mach, but if i don´t i will not know hoy the preform toguether. there should be an option to hide statistics when playing private league except for the private league members. Don´t you think so?

Since a lot of people seem to dislike the idea of an inside/outside defence training, how about an inside/outside scoring one. This would mean you could train your player say two seasons training at PG for OD/PA, then one at C for ID/RB, then you would be able to play him at SF to train one on one for DR/HA, Jumpshot for JS, and inside/outside for IS/JR.
This would allow you to get your player, and focus on his defence early on, as a lot of managers do anyway. Then at 21 you could actually play him at SF to get all his other skills up. In my opinion this would be a good compromise for both sides of the argument, as you would still have to train him out of position, but you would get him into his preferred position sooner.

Because he can increase his IS every 4 weeks with JS or 1n1 in SF-PF.

OD should change for SF's...

I'm training SFs and I don't want to change it.

Maybe if we stopped thinking strictly in terms of positions, that would help? Instead of saying "I have to play my SF at PG!" we can say "I gave my player duties he wouldn't normally assume, in order to make him better at them."

You don't build players to fit into positional molds. It's the other way around.