BuzzerBeater Forums

I don't understand the argument of the NT players, if I hope right it will help to train secondaries

Of course I'm assuming the 10% will go to the low skills as some kind of elastic effect, in this way the cross training makes a lot of sense, and I'm almost sure thats the way it will go or else why would well-rounded players be less affected by it?

As for realism, it's good as well, as no player trains just 2 or 3 skills at a time ( every team play games at practice)

But I think the worst thing is saying something is s*** before we see the effects, and I also agree that the BBs could have been a little more clear as some of the confusion would go away and also the "it's the end of the world people".

Please stop saying that everybody is unhappy about this change. I have already seen BBs cutting salaries or even maybe changing their formulas. So we don't even know how their salaries are going to change after the years of cross-training. Speaking about the NT players. It's the same for everybody, we are on the equal ground...
I don't see a reason why this system is so bad that many players leave. I guess people hate to be uncertain, you're furious not because of the new system but uncertaintity of your future.

Last edited by Phantum at 7/28/2011 5:41:25 PM

I don't think the GE is flawed in that regard.


That's really how it should be. Jack of all trades type players are nothing more than niche players in the NBA, truly elite guys are spectacular in certain areas and not so great in others.

If a team has a C who is a monster with 20 IS and 20 RE and 20 ID, it would be inexplicable for his counterpart to outplay him just because he had better shooting range and was a better ball handler.

One well rounded player will not beat his monster counterpart in this game.
However, a team of well rounded players can be better than a team of monsters, because they become more than just the sum of their parts.

A 400k player will still be a 400k player that wont be sustainable long term if you want to contend on the highest level, a random pop will make him a 450k player that is even worse financially.

I dont think that the cryptic announcement you made well in advance prepared the people for this change, if it had there would not be so many complaints.

if a 400k salary player really gets a tertiary skill pop like that' he's pretty unlikely to have been a 400k salary player beforehand, but rather a 440k player. Stop thinking in displayed levels, what's used for the salary calculations etc. is the actual skill value, not the displayed (rounded) one.

And the announcement was clear enough that there was at least a 50% chance of this happening. prudential planning would have meant taking the possibility into account.

I can see where Charles is coming from on this topic. It's just easy to complain about a problem and then complain about the cure, even if the cure was announced way beforehand. There will be a few isolated cases of people getting hurt there; but the potential itself does have a spectrum, and there are way more people getting problems because they miscalculated the actual potential their player as than from this small change. And yeah, if the problem really is in the minor secondary pops, let the BBs implement something to turn those off. Then you can choose - only the pops you want, or better training speed. It's really your choice then.

Thanks for giving some clues about this new change, also congratulations for the poll add.

Just a quick questions.

I remember posts from you(season 10-11 or so) where you said, that managers were focussing too much on monoskilled players and they weren't training in a multiskilled way.

After some seasons, most of the managers still train in a monoskilled way.


Is there a need to change all the training system just to train more balanced? I would understand that training JS, improves FT's, but why SB?(just an example)

If training on a multiskilled way has a lot of good things, why not leave the managers discover by itself?

I train in a balanced way, but i don't fancy with the idea that others skills start to pop-up so i can't no longer pay my player i trained during 7 seasons.

you'd just be giving up on increases with zero compensation), would you want it? If enough people actually would prefer that, it would be easy for us to implement...[

I don't like the idea to add a change where you can decide what skills you want to train and what skills you don't want, it would be like HT, that would be an awfull add.


If you make this change, make it 100%, but don't make it a half of it , that would make the training easier and at the end less interesting

Example:

Van Gundy: "Come on Howard, people say you´re superman so let´s train rebounding once again"

Picture shows Arenas throwing really bad shots (as usual) while Howard´s hardly fighting against Nelson to improve the skill.

30 min later.

Van Gundy: "Oh man, your reboundig skill was so high so you´ve learnt how to pass better to Arenas to try more shots".

Conclusion:

I don´t like it, if you wanna an all around player: train him or buy him. Random issues are so unrealistic and can only give surprises.

A better option could be improve secondary skills to IS, ID or rebounding training. Don´t change it but improve the secondary charge of those trainings that IMO are so low right now. Example: JS improves too slowly if you train IS and driving does not currenty improve at all.

Last edited by Mr.Mac at 7/28/2011 7:57:35 PM

I can see where Charles is coming from on this topic. It's just easy to complain about a problem and then complain about the cure, even if the cure was announced way beforehand. There will be a few isolated cases of people getting hurt there; but the potential itself does have a spectrum, and there are way more people getting problems because they miscalculated the actual potential their player as than from this small change. And yeah, if the problem really is in the minor secondary pops, let the BBs implement something to turn those off. Then you can choose - only the pops you want, or better training speed. It's really your choice then.

More easy more boring

would that really be easier? You'd lose 10% of training, so you won't get there all that fast, and if you want to train a youngster this could hijack his development. I think it would give more control, yes, but at a cost. And that cost would exactly be the amount of training a player receives.

My annoyance with the change is just that it's unclear, so maybe that can actually be solved.

"A particularly well-rounded player will continue to receive cross-training but will see a much lower reduction in primary skill training, while a particularly one-dimensional player will see a larger loss."

Does that mean that a particularly one-dimensional player will see a larger loss *even* if trying to train a skill which he is bad at? Or does it just mean that he'll see a larger loss when he's training the skill(s) he's already especially over-trained in? I'm presuming the latter, but that's not what was actually stated.