BuzzerBeater Forums

As someone who has trained SFs since joining BB, I don't like the idea. Does the guard who needs a rebounding pop then have a case for training rebounding as a guard, or does his owner need to make an extra sacrifice to train him in a category foreign to his position? The latter makes more sense. Real life balanced SFs are rare, and tend to be capable of playing any position on the floor (or at least four of them). If you want to train a Lamar Odom-like player who can handle and pass, while also rebounding and defending bigs, playing him at PG and PF/C makes perfect sense anyways. As somebody already mentioned, it's a sensible design inflexibility.

Last edited by RiseandFire at 2/17/2011 12:45:54 AM

I guess the most problems with training SFs could be sold if:

ID-training was offered for forwards
OD-training was offered for wingmen

That wouldnt make training too easy but help a lot and add some kind of realism to this weird training system.

I dont think so.

It makes a huge difference if you can play your SF at his natural position or as a C or PG - you could use him in a 4-5 man rotation (less minutes per game) instead of forcing him to play the full 48 minutes plus the ratings and thus the output would be much better.

my problem with this suggestion, is that is it a huge Change for people who just trained there player the "complicated" way and make those sacrifices to have an extremly valuable player. Just to notice that the next generation is pretty easy to train and destroys the value.

and i don't see the necessarity of a change in one of the game cores like the training, so it isn't trouble for me ;)

my problem with this suggestion, is that is it a huge Change for people who just trained there player the "complicated" way and make those sacrifices to have an extremly valuable player. Just to notice that the next generation is pretty easy to train and destroys the value.

That might be, but if it is announced early enough - like 2 seasons before the change happens I think it will be a fair and good improvement.

On the other hand offering a 2-position training that is considerably slower than the complicated 1-pos training might not be such a huge change at all.

It is my opinion that if there is a desire to modify Training, which I don't think has been modified since I've been here (maybe I'm forgetting an ancient modification?), it could be done. Yeah, it would change the market and strategies pretty quick for those paying attention, but if it's for the betterment of the game, then it should be done. Perhaps the compromise should be to make the announcement with a 3 or 4-season lead time. This won't make everyone happy, such as the manager who spent several seasons training a hard-to-train position like SF and won't be able to sell such a player for as much in the future, but at least these managers will still get to keep their players, and this will mean the loss of what, probably no more than a few hundred-thousand dollars for a player at the most for the best of these players. I think a typical manager spends no more than 3 or 4 seasons intensely training a player before making a different player a training priority, which is why I suggest that sort of time frame, to minimize the impact. For a change in Training that has been this long in coming, we could wait that long before a change is implemented. What's another 4 seasons? By know, we all know what the major issues with Training are, I say let's just fix them and have the perfect Training system by Season 20!