BuzzerBeater Forums

Suggestions > Minute distribution considering defence

Minute distribution considering defence

Set priority
Show messages by
This Post:
00
139299.1
Date: 04/04/2010 22:32:04
Overall Posts Rated:
237237
Okay here is something I found does not quite make sense. I want to train my PG in ID.

So I play him at C for the week but to minimize the disruption to the team I flag the option "I want my C to play defense as a PG" so my PG plays offense as a C and defense as a PG

As it stands my PG will get training in ID despite the fact he never played a minute of defense at that position.

So realistically your player really only played half his minutes at C and the other half as PG. I suggest we take out half the minutes played of their designated position and assign it to where they are assigned to play defense.

e.g In the above scenario, if I played him for 48 minutes, he would really be getting 24 min at C and 24 min at PG.

If I had him play defense at C as well then he would get 48 minutes at C.

This Post:
00
139299.2 in reply to 139299.1
Date: 04/04/2010 23:06:51
Overall Posts Rated:
522522
I agree. It would make training more difficult (well for those that play different players at different positions for offence and defence). However, the distribution of 48 min wouldn't be 24 min and 24 min. Because I don't think the amount of time spent on offence and defence is going to be the same, especially if 1 team is much better than the other.

It would make the game more realistic, but in saying that, if they leave it as it is I'm not bothered.

This Post:
00
139299.3 in reply to 139299.1
Date: 04/05/2010 12:32:48
BC Hostivař
II.2
Overall Posts Rated:
11711171
Second Team:
Jirkov
I don't like your suggestion at all. It would mean, that changing position for defense would have no sense. In my eyes the main purpose of adding changing positions was easier training out of position. Even if it's still quite difficult to train players out of position.

This Post:
00
139299.4 in reply to 139299.3
Date: 04/05/2010 19:35:15
Overall Posts Rated:
237237
No...changing position for defense still has sense if you got different type of player playing in another position. e.g. my SF is a better inside defender than my PF so I have my SF play as PF on defense. It doesn't necessarily have to do with training.

It just doesn't make sense why a player should be credited for training minutes if he isn't even playing them at the correct defensive position that the training minutes are for

From: zyler

This Post:
00
139299.5 in reply to 139299.4
Date: 04/05/2010 23:28:14
Overall Posts Rated:
217217
going to have to disagree with this suggestion, the implemented this change to help people make balanced players and bring a little more variety to the tactics of each team.

highly unlikely they will change this with the big push to get rid of monoskilled players for multiskilled ones.

This Post:
00
139299.6 in reply to 139299.4
Date: 04/08/2010 05:47:41
BC Hostivař
II.2
Overall Posts Rated:
11711171
Second Team:
Jirkov
But it's not quite common situation, usually you swap (according to tactic) only players with following positions as SF/PF. I can't imagine many players playing f.e. offense as C and defense as PG as tactical not training option.

I think it would be quite complicated to count offense and deffence time for each player in your model.

This Post:
00
139299.7 in reply to 139299.6
Date: 04/08/2010 20:43:55
Overall Posts Rated:
237237
I definately can see where you are coming from but like i said it does not make sense to say you can be trained in a position if you really didn't even play all the minutes in that particular position. Example is defense. You can have a player trained in ID with the player not having played a single minute of defense at all. Just as long as you start him at C/PF, you can have him defend at another position. I don't see how you can credit a person with ID training when he never played any ID to begin with.

Perhaps the training regime should be changed to accommodate the positions played at defense rather than for offense. i.e for training skills like OD, ID it looks at what position you played at defense rather than what you played at offense.

This Post:
00
139299.8 in reply to 139299.7
Date: 04/08/2010 23:03:59
Overall Posts Rated:
522522
I think that would make it confusing for new players. And what about things like one-on-one? Should that be Offence, Defence or both? What about Free Throws? How can a player be trained in free throws if they don't shoot a free throw at all that week in the games? What about rebounding? Would that be both as well? What about if you are playing a zone defence, can you learn Inside defence by putting the player at PF instead of C?

From: Elmacca
This Post:
00
139299.9 in reply to 139299.8
Date: 04/09/2010 19:00:55
Overall Posts Rated:
387387
somewhere around these parts there's an exchange between myself and one of the BBs on this subject, where I argued your point about ID should require defending that position and Charles (I think) argued that sometimes what's intuitive needs to be sacrificed on the altar of game design and gameplay and came up with a killer example (which I forget now, sorry) of why he was right. In the end, I think I agreed that suspending the obvious disbelief was indeed better for the game than opting for the purely intuitive because of the argument he made.
Anyway, the point of my post was that you may like to be reassured that we've had this argument and the BBs won. Pity I can't remember why or how, but that's getting what getting old and living too well does for you....

Last edited by Elmacca at 04/09/2010 19:01:54