BuzzerBeater Forums

I agree with the basis of the proposal but precisely one of the things that I liked most about the game is discovering that a player had to be used in certain positions to increase his qualities in a certain skill.
Contrary to what you say, it is something completely real. For example, Pau Gasol acquired his passing and dribbling skills playing as a point guard for Barcelona despite being the tallest on the squad.

He did do that in the lower categories, not once having risen to the first team.

That's why I like your idea but related to another that I have proposed, which is youth teams. (323660.1)

I think that the player's initial training is very important and that once he reaches the elite the player continues to evolve but more in tactical concepts, game vision and above all experience but at 24 years old he does not know how to shoot from 3 or give a pass You are no longer going to become a master of that.

On the other hand, that a national team has to play official matches with improper third-category players, either to avoid exhausting the starters or to train them when they are already quite old, seems crazy to me without any sense.

Everytime someone complains about position training to develop certain skills compared to the real world I think of Giannis Basketball Reference page that has him listed at PG/SG/SF his first 4 seasons when he developed lots of his skills that made him what he is today.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/a/antetgi01.html

Variations of your proposal have been proposed all those years. They are all mostly nice but they would also mean a completely different game and thus are hard to consider.

However, there is an implementation that could be made and which would allow more variations, would allow some secrecy and also would keep the spirit of how BB training works:

- training should be possible not only for the player's designated offensive position but also for the player's designated defense position.

For example, you have a perimeter player that you want to develop his inside skills, than:

Player A - offense PG defense C
Player B - offense SG defense PG
Player C - offense SF defense SG
Player D - offense PF defense SF
Player E - offense C defense PF

You choose that you want the players who defend as centers to train ID, so in this case player A receive training.

In order to keep things more realistic, this could be the default way to train defenses.

This would discourage the mindset of "I'll just leave it as it is." Even during a rebuilding phase, without aiming for the top pick, you could still make an effort to arrange a good lineup and play well.

This issue becomes apparent when you train a small forward for outside skills and then switch to inside skills; the team’s weakness in the inside becomes obvious. With such a flaw, you might not want to invest in good players until the trainees are more complete, leading to a dull period. However, without "training positions," even if my trainees are substitutes, as long as they play 45+ minutes a week, they can still grow well.

I'm interested in this mindset.
I freely associated that when restarting training a new round of 18- and 19-year-old players, the sacrifices required for training might give rise to the idea of leaving BB.
I also freely associated that in my community, many managers who specialized in training for the NT have already left BB, but I don't know why they left.
Overall, I think this mindset isn't a good thing and maybe it needs improvement.

In the past, there have been many related suggestions in the Suggestions forum.

There were proposals to remove training positions (152135.1)(160767.1)(273660.18)(273885.1), and even a vote was conducted (316048.1), but at that time, 23 out of 52 votes were against it.
There was a suggestion to remove training positions, but not assigning specific players; instead, coaches would assign training time. (319308.1)
There was a proposals aimed to remove both training positions and the restrictions of training types, allowing different players to participate in different training programs. (289041.1)
There were suggestions for accepting training without needing to play in matches. (275294.2)(288592.4)
There was a proposal to train only one player without being restricted by position. (162827.1)
There were suggestions to directly assign full training to a specific player. (284507.1)(288287.1)
Some were related to SF and hope for specific positions to train specific skills. (52319.1)(56824.9)(67212.1)(174785.11)(242735.1)
Some hope SG/SF and SF/PF positions can train passing (251301.1), and some hope SG/SF or SF/PF positions can train inside scoring. (175591.1)
There were also proposals to convert some training into two 1-position training or two 2-position training.(7590.30)
There were suggestions to reduce penalties for other positions (273885.19)(275294.85) or offset with other skills. (273717.29)(275294.89)
There were also compromise solutions: select a few players who can train in two to three different positions.(273205.6)(278239.1)


Last edited by little Guest at 7/14/2024 12:32:25 PM

Opposing views are scattered across some threads.

The most common argument is that training has become too easy. (7590.31)(52319.3)(131961.9)(164062.2)(275294.47)

Training SF or versatile players should be a challenge. (52319.11)(56824.18)(131961.11)
This makes it very easy to train versatile, multi-skilled players (67212.3)(152135.2)(174785.24)(195460.6), leading to situations, for example, where most trained interior players also possess excellent passing abilities. (251301.7)(251301.9)
This could significantly impact (80191.3) or unfairly affect those currently training SF or versatile players (67212.5)(67212.155), as the value of players decreases when it becomes easier to train. (67212.5)(174785.14)
Some believe that BB's design intends to ensure certain skills remain exclusive to players in specific positions. (251301.9)
To have players acquire valuable secondary skills (which enhance performance), managers must make some sacrifices.(174785.24)(221027.8)

BB-Marin also mentioned that these training restrictions are intentional to increase difficulty. (273660.21)
Trade-off is the key; managers must choose between training speed and match performance. Otherwise, the game becomes too simple (boring and lacking challenge). (139901.6)(273660.21)
If you want to achieve both, it is very complex and difficult (275294.16); you need to manage your team well (288592.15) and find a balance. (160767.4)
This is the beautiful strategy part of this game. (160767.2)

The current training system allows lower-level league teams to train more easily than top-level league teams (273660.38) and benefit from it (financially and with excellent players, etc.). (278223.32)
As it is nearly impossible to maintain a strong competitive lineup while developing top-tier players, top teams gradually weaken as their players age. (273717.27)
They need to find ways to strengthen their team.
If top teams can easily train three players fully without them having to play, It benefits those teams currently in the top league to remain in the top league, as they earn a lot of money and also have training freedom. (273660.46)
They will train players round after round, with younger ones replacing older ones, defeating teams promoted from lower leagues, easily maintaining their position in the top league. (273885.35)
We shouldn't make staying in the top league too easy or comfortable. (275294.103)
BB-Marin also mentioned that forcing top teams to give up training to enhance competitiveness is a good thing.
This means lower-level teams can catch up with them through training.
Otherwise, we wouldn't see any vertical movement between divisions. (273660.39)

Last edited by little Guest at 7/15/2024 3:33:53 AM

I seek to find a balance between removing training positions and opposing views.
The following is my solution.
(To understand more easily, you can first assume to remove training positions.)

Plan: 1+2+3+4+5

1. All players of all ages need to play at least 50 minutes (without any buffer) to receive full training.
- Force trainees to at least appear as backups in league games, to reduce the team's competitiveness.

2. Add a ranked tournament in (323509.15)
- After being eliminated from the cup or after the cup ends, teams will enter a ranked tournament instead of a scrimmage.
- Increase a (small) cost in higher-level league training: the performance in the ranked tournament will affect Fan Survey and season tickets.
After all, backups of higher-level league teams are usually stronger than those of lower-level league teams.

3. Change exhaustion to apply to all ages, not just those over 27 years old.
- Increase the cost of using 48+ tactics in ranked tournaments.

4. Changing training positions to a compromise-like solution: 1-position training become up to 3 players in two positions; 2-position training become up to 6 players in three or five positions.
- Training would roughly change like this: https://imgur.com/XqxDVOL
- Whether we should retain the original 3-position and 5-position training can be discussed.
- Rebounding, One on One, and Jump Shot are less beautiful because they introduce training positions that were not originally present.

5. Training time during "offseason" weeks is reduced to 40 minutes for full training.
- Define an "offseason" week as a week with a maximum of two matches and a scrimmage on Saturday.
- Resolving the unfairness where only two positions (originally 1-positon training) can train up to 3 players when there are only two matches, while three positions (originally 2-positions training) can only guarantee training for 4 players.
- Maintaining the enjoyment of strategizing how to achieve training goals with three positions (originally 2-positions training with 5 players).


Last edited by little Guest at 7/16/2024 10:02:19 PM

I came up with a new proposal (325503.22) that is somewhat related to training positions.