BuzzerBeater Forums

BB Global (English) > Analyzing pops in Cross-training!

Analyzing pops in Cross-training!

Set priority
Show messages by
This Post:
00
192339.99 in reply to 192339.98
Date: 8/1/2011 4:52:30 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
699699
As a confirmation, is there any example of 1 player who had pops in 2 different unrelated skills ?

From: Greedy
This Post:
00
192339.100 in reply to 192339.99
Date: 8/1/2011 5:37:31 PM
Manila Bombers
PPL
Overall Posts Rated:
216216
Just a random thought, in the old system, could training primaries 90% of the time and secondaries 10% of the be the optimal training method?

From: Koperboy

This Post:
00
192339.101 in reply to 192339.100
Date: 8/1/2011 6:01:37 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
952952
I don't really get what you mean...you want to say if you'd train primaries only?

In the "old" system, you'd train OD on 100% and HA&DR on 10-15%. Or you'd train JR on 100%, JS with it on 30% and HA&DR on 10-15%.

Now you train OD on 90%, HA&DR on 10-15% and a random skill on 10%. At least that's how I get that.

From: Greedy

This Post:
00
192339.103 in reply to 192339.101
Date: 8/1/2011 8:22:16 PM
Manila Bombers
PPL
Overall Posts Rated:
216216
Sorry for being a little vague.

What I mean is in the old system, maybe the best thing is if we train something different once every 10 weeks. Like rebounding for guards. It just crossed my mind because in the new system, the training of the main skill is reduced by 10%.

Anyway, it is just a random comment. :P

From: bjones28

This Post:
00
192339.104 in reply to 192339.103
Date: 8/1/2011 11:09:21 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
33
So if the aim is to create more balanced players, random training can be detrimental.

If you are trying to balance out a mono-skilled player by training the players other skills, you could be randomly training 10% on the mono-skill each week.

Kind of defeats the purpose. You really need to be allocating the 10% to lesser skills in order to create balanced players.

I dont like the random allocation.

From: zyler
This Post:
11
192339.105 in reply to 192339.104
Date: 8/2/2011 10:47:24 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
217217
i dont get what everyone is freaking about :(

where talking about 10% of training going to a random skill

so unless that skills sub level is insanely high and almost about to pop you are not going to see a change.

we all ready pay salary for sub levels so where talking about a very minimal rise in any salary due to a unwanted pop.

realistically the only issue is that training will be 10% slower in the areas we want to train, this will most likely cause an imbalance in national teams as players will take longer to catch up to the old style trained players.

so i expect to see older players in national teams sticking around longer , making it harder for new comers to break into there nationals teams.




From: GM-hrudey

This Post:
11
192339.106 in reply to 192339.105
Date: 8/2/2011 1:36:12 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
32293229
i dont get what everyone is freaking about


Welcome to the Internet. ;)

This Post:
00
192339.107 in reply to 192339.105
Date: 8/2/2011 4:32:57 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
4242
i dont get what everyone is freaking about :(


Us BBers don't like change, especially change that slows down something we have grown accustomed to. It is as simple as that.

Having said that, I'm not exactly a proponent of this new system, but good managers will adapt and make use of it. Bad managers will not. Simple as that.

This Post:
00
192339.108 in reply to 192339.107
Date: 8/2/2011 8:42:26 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
1616
7/29/2011 Jump Shot for PG / SG
Michael Kelly ↑popped↑ in Stamina from inept to mediocre .


That was unexpected and a waste as stamina is so easy to train.

This Post:
00
192339.109 in reply to 192339.50
Date: 8/2/2011 8:53:42 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
32293229
I don't know if any of the BBs have answered this and I can't imagine it hasn't been asked, but I don't remember seeing it, so here goes:

We know that the 10% lost from primary training is moved to a random skill, essentially. But was there an announcement as to whether the 10% used for the secondary is based on 10% of the training effect of the primary or 10% of a normal training on the secondary? For example, a 6'0 PG training OD and selected for 10% in ID -- if it's based on the primary skill, the 10% would be much more effective than 1/10 of an ID training thanks to the height being useful for the primary, but if it's based on 10% of training the secondary, the height would drag it down.

Advertisement