BuzzerBeater Forums

I think the point that thylacine really wanted to make is that if you are a player at height 6'6-6'8 that means its a disadvantage in BB and it shouldn't be this way. Having such height really makes it so this is a negative attribute to have and you want to stay away from them in favor for 5'9 or 7'5 players. Whatever way you implement changes in training, it doesn't matter, just make it so its not a bad thing to be 6'6-6'8 like it is in real life. Because in BB it's a bad thing to be built as a small forward.

Last edited by Coach_Gil at 3/23/2011 10:22:59 AM

why are they disadvantaged, they are quite well ;)

Overall I'm not a fan of the way the training system works here period. Unfortunately to make it the more realistic and right way that BB should have that resemble a real life scenario, would require type of changes that would never happen.

To really resemble real life training it should closely more resemble something like in NBA Live Franchise mode. The way things work right now, it's like I can play a full game, then I decide if i'm better passer or shooter simply by hypothetical choice, not by how I really gain the practice from physical action in the game. It would be much more realistic if players get drafted and all have more than 1 variable that determines their potential. For example a Kobe Bryant like player may have all-time great athleticism potential which impacts driving, handling, IS, JS just an hypotethical example. He is great shooter but not the best so he would have like an superstar or MVP outside shooting Potential and say Interior Defense would be starter-star potential.

With those different potentials you really get the diverse skilled players based on real life that certain players are meant to be great shooters, great drivers to the basketball, great leaders, etc.... instead of just coming in raw and becoming whatever they are told to be good at. This way its strictly player improves by their real talent, and it won't have to be so dependent on height which in fact should not have any impact on the training since short players would usually get higher potential labeling in guard related skills and not big men skills. That way you also can make it so not as often 5'9-5'10 are that good and it's more 6'0-6'4 PG like in real life. So really height won't impact training but have high correlation with certain potential labeling. But it would be useful in like draft scouting so if you see 5'9-5'10 you know there is less chance he be as good as 6'0-6'4 like in real life, again I have to point that out.

If this was how it all started, people would love it cause simply it would exactly mold real life scenario and players would be trained like in real life where everyone playing time helped them impove, instead of that one guy you choose who's 48 minutes magically transformed to improved and the other player who played 48 minutes isn't improved because a magic wand was not used on him. In NBA Live anyone can imporve but it usually only significantly happens to young players and thats exactly how it should be. As far as trainers go, having high level trainer just mean better training in your team and faster growth, would also be nice to diversify trainers level in guards, centers, ect... to resemble more like how it is in real life. A Scott Skiles like coach for example would better serve training guards than he does centers cause he was a guard himself with all time record of 30 assists.

I know people would start disagreeing with this, because its all about what people are used to, so if from the begining you had an option to name players Nacho Cheese and if you did then they become good as Michael Jordan, then now everyone be saying don't get rid of the Nacho Cheese labeling I think it's good idea cause it keeps around Michael Jordan. Sounds absurd? well tell me this, there is no way we can get players like Lebron James or Kevin Durant in our league, and thats not absurd??? Oh wait, that's how BB started it, so its good we don't have LBJ or Durant keep it this way and don't change it.

If BB started having having such system implemented from begining it would've created 100% real life equivelancy but with way things are now people just got used to screwed way of BB equivelant to real life players and users at this point love that more than making it whats more real. I mean not to sound harsh but I think it's important to make the point across. I know few of those who see the obvious flaw with SF can see my point and agree with this, please help me to send this blatant better message across please

Last edited by Coach_Gil at 3/24/2011 11:14:21 AM

what he meant is that the attributes that distinguish 6'6"/6'8" players are not directly reflected in the BB simulation (one example is really OD: in reality undersized guards have huge trouble guarding 6'6" types. in BB they actually get a training advantage!!!).

normally the 6,6 guys get trouble to keep in front of the smaller ones, there a very good one who are able to do it - but the most guard also good ones in the d are smaller

I think the 5"10 really comes a bit to good through the system, but i think you could create good players with every size and depending on the contribution you choose different size are in advantage.

LOL I used exactly 4000 letters in the last post, I should thank thylacine he brought up the idea in mind and I should point out that his suggestion for the 'quickness', 'strength', 'athleticism' labeling is actually a great way to actually define a player on how you can improve him from raw to great skill in certain areas and others not, where in BB all players potential to grow in specific areas are completely spread out equal and is up in the air. So all 6'9-6'10 who should be PF for example should not be just as equally likely to be able to shoot the 3 as the rest. There should be some labeling to PF as 'outside shooters' so you have around a Nowitzki/Rashard Lewis/Villaneuva/Jamison/Love who can drain from the outside, and some without labels who would be no 3pts like Griffin/Duncan/Gasol so certain 6'9-6'10 can improve like the rest. Thats why I had the suggestions in potential in labeling in the last example.

They are disadvantage, because as proven by the best of the best out there which can be found in national teams, you see only the 5'9-6'1 or the 7'+ in the roster, on rare occasion you may find someone who's height in the middle. So say you do, that 6'7 dude makes 30k a year when a center in that team makes 400k its a desperation to seek a SF cause simply there aren't good enough around.

So why is it a disadvantage, well if you get a guard he can be a Chris Paul or Ray Allen, or a center he can be a Shaq or Yao. But a SF, can he be a Lebron or Durant? or more like a kicker in a football (American) team?

But also as he pointed out and Coco as well, there is vast difference is performance when it comes to height differential matchups.

Last edited by Coach_Gil at 3/23/2011 11:26:27 AM

Hmmm, I think you don't know what you are talking about. The people hailed as best perimeter defenders in the NBA are Artest (6'7"), Wade (6'4"), Battier (6'8"). It is very hard to drive past these guys. On the other hand, the sub 6'3" players have a hard time keeping up strength-wise or even defending the pick and roll.

but there a lot more people at that size who struggle at guarding the perimeter, and i think the overall picture goes more to people of Wade size then the one of Battier(so that i would say he is more the exception then the rule). People like Ai would be good here, but true in reality they would suffer from there size.

But overall i think the size isn't reflected bad in this game.

I think people here are just comparing too much to the NBA.