BuzzerBeater Forums

So if I'm understanding correctly there are 3 options being proposed mostly:

a) Keep the single weekly regime...

b) ... however they will have to play at a specific position to receive 100% training ...

c) Training will be applied with no penalty irrespective of the position of each trainee. ... they still need to receive 48 minutes.

All of these options make it substantially easier to train out of position.

Closer, but still illogical in each of your scenarios.

a. Coach: "Carmelo and J.R., get over here. I'm going to train you both on defense."
J.R.: "Okay, Coach, let's go."
Carmelo: "Coach, you know I hate to play defense. Waaaahh."
Coach: "Too bad. I can only train one thing at a time."

b. Coach: "Cleanthony, Quincy, Pablo, no training for you this week because you didn't play in a game."
Quincy: "But coach, the guys who played don't need training as much as we do. We're the ones who need it."
Coach: "Too bad. If you don't play I ignore you entirely. Now go over there and sit on your thumbs."

c. Same problem. Coach: "Too bad. If you don't play I ignore you entirely. Now go over there and sit on your thumbs."

Forget percentages. As long as the phrase "train out of position" remains, the illogic remains. It is NOT necessary.

I expect hrudey to come in guns blazing saying that with this sytem you can train all your players in a single (thrown) game.

You have to throw a game for optimal training? Completely illogical and unnecessary. No wonder newbies so often do not stick around.

Last edited by Mike Franks at 1/27/2015 11:00:57 AM

if it stays as it is now, with the small difference that training on a position which is not the original training position is decreased by only 10-15% (i think 40% as it is now is too much) and those 10-15% will instead increase random skills (like crosstraining does), it don't think we would really lose an aspect of the game, but instead gain an additional aspect, that is actually an alternative.
right now we have a theoretical option to train at lower speed at any position we want. but this option is of nearly no use because it gives you a clear disadvantage compared to "normal training". especially because most of the "off position training" happens when you play in bot-leagues or in teams that tank anyway so training players centers at guardposition or guards at C positions still is the best and most efficient way to train. with the changes i described above you have to think if you want to train exactly one skill at 100% or if it is ok to train other skills along with the mainskill which is instead trained at lower speed.

i think this would give you an extra option. and it makes training more compatible with playing competitive.

one thing i have to add: you still have to choose a position you want to train, so you can still only train 3 (or 6) players. but if you choose another position than the original position it gives you a certain malus (i would propose 10%. it seems little but if you see how much fuss we make about the approximatly 4% a trainerlvl adds to training it is quite a lot)

Last edited by jonte at 1/27/2015 11:22:39 AM

... so training players centers at guardposition or guards at C positions still is the best and most efficient way to train. ...

A question for perpete, who doesn't think training is the worst aspect of BB. What could be worse than this^^ ?

if it stays as it is now, with the small difference that training on a position which is not the original training position is decreased by only 10-15% (i think 40% as it is now is too much) and those 10-15% will instead increase random skills (like crosstraining does), it don't think we would really lose an aspect of the game, but instead gain an additional aspect, that is actually an alternative.

This idea seems good enough that it helps training out of position while keeping the challenges of training. I wouldn't even mind the current rates for the malus, as it stays true to the slower training out of position. It's also realistic in a sense that centers can train passing, but not with the same excersises and results as guards. They would train outlet passing, training Rebounding and Passing for example and no driving. I think it works well within BB as wel as being a realistic simulation of real basketball.

I wouldn't even mind the current rates for the malus

ironically, i fear that this would result in players that are too balanced. having more balanced players (even if a noob trains a player) is a positive sideffect of crosstraining, but a crosstrainingboost of 40% would be too much. it is important too find a balance

Let's say 60% to what you want to train, 20% randomly given for free elsewhere and 20% lost. .

Even trying to make the best of a bad situation, you get things like this. It's like saying NBA coaches don't know what they're doing 20% of the time and aren't doing anything 20% of the time. Even a Div. 2 college coach would get fired if he were that bad.

Better to correct the bad situation, imo. When it could be fixed so simply and logically, is there any reason to cling so tightly to the illogical, confusing, complex system we have now other than the fact that some guys have sort of figured it out and they want to keep their advantage over everyone else?