BuzzerBeater Forums

I would like to start a discussion on 2 changes on the training system I will explain below (in four points. but dont get confused the first 3 are attached to each other). I don't think that these changes will be implicated by the BB, but I am interested in the effects they would have on the BB-world and if we would have completely other players in this game.

1. make the height effect on training stronger. (In ordner to counter the effect of 2. It will be easier to train multiskilled players, this change would level this effect out)

2. Keep the "Training-by-position" idea, but increase the positions on which players can be trained. (like with two position training now)

- make guardtraining (OD; PA; JR, DRB) available on PG-SG or PG-SG-SF (but with 90% training speed)
- make bigmentraining (IS; REB; ID; SB) avaible on C-PF or SF-PF-C (but with 90% training speed)
- make 1on1 and JS training avaible on SG-SF-PF

you would still have to train out of position, if you want to build a multiskiller. but not so far out of position. small forwards can be trained on their original position, but with a small decrease in training speed (comparable with a lvl 2 trainer instead of lvl 5).

3. add an option to select 3 players on the training page who will get training this week. (because with two positions you could otherwise train 6 players at full training speed)
this way you can let your players play as normal starters at PG and SG two times and they will get training. but you can also have them both play 48min in the training game if they are too weak.

4. a training camp every season where you can train every player in a skill you choose. the training speed is dependent of his age, height etc.

PRO
-it would give less experienced teams the possibility to train SFs easier. In most low leagues managers playing with PF or PG at SF. this sucks. especially if you have a real SF and can easily exploid that weakness.
- people who really hate training out of position can train at SF, a position which is not so far out of position but with 90% training speed.
- it is less complicated that the training concept we have right know
- it does not change too much, the main idea behind the training concept stays the same
- you could see your star player develop on his position or a position close to his natural position. He would be a help for your team, you see his stats get better and so on. This would attach new managers to their star players and to this game!
- players can play two games as a starter at their position and get training.
- the players you don't train get better every season, but not by much...
- it would be a good compromise between the old training and some of the demands of many active players

CON
- well every change has some risks
- maybe it would be too easy to train multiskilled players
- it does not satisfy all complaints of the "anti-training-movement"
- you can train two trainees f.e. at one at PG and one at SG in the traininggame (even 3 if you train at 90%) that is a huge difference, because you are able to have a competitive team AND train at the same time. if you think this will influence the dynamics of the game too much, just leave that part out: make guardtraining avaible at PG and SG, but you have to choose one position, bigmen training at C and PF, but again you have to choose which position. JS, 1on1 at SG,SF or SF, PF and all training regimes at SF but at 90% trainingspeed. This would be a very simple change but it wont have all the benefits of my suggestion above

I know it sounds complicated, but i am open to answer questions..

Last edited by jonte at 4/7/2016 12:29:07 PM

maybe you are right.

a very simple version of this would just expand on the idea that was implemented two seasons ago. just limit the training decreases so they are as big as the trainer lvl differences. the rest stays at it is.

f.e. PG Training
PG = 100% = lvl 6 Trainer
SG = 94% = lvl 5 trainer
SF = 92%?? = lvl 4 trainer
PF = 88% = lvl 3
C = 84% = lvl 2

(the number are just guessed)

keep additional stuff, like 2 Pos training etc, if you like. although I think it made it very complicated, especially two position Pressure on a position other than PG+SG. its really not easy to understand.

no big changes. but it makes the options with reduces training speed more interesting. with 92% training speed, the percentage of managers who train OD for bigmen at PG or SG and managers who train at SF but with a small decrease in training speed would even out i guess.

but you would still would start your trainee only one time a week and he will play 48minutes in this game. This excludes him from all statistics etc. and he is not really a help for your team. this is something which I never really liked. (how much fun is it to see a SF performing at his natural position one time a week in a private league? see..)

This would be easier. I still like change 4) very much. the camp is independent of this.

The main difference is that this would be a real alternative, compared to the increased training speed options we have now and the system would be much easier to understand.

/edit: note that I still prefer the first proposition for discussed reasons.

Last edited by jonte at 4/20/2016 10:27:23 AM

Maybe it was explained bad in the first post, so I will try again.

This is the idea descriped in point 2. in my original post.

3-step training setup:

1. Choose which 3 trainees you want to train.(Optional: Choose 6 Trainees for reduced training speed)

2.Choose a training regime:

Pressure for a) Guards b) Guards + SF (90-95%*)
Passing a) Guards b) Guards +SF (90-95%)
Dribbling a) Guards b) Guards +SF (90-95%)
Outside Attack a) Guards b) Guards +SF (90-95%)

Inside Defense: a) Bigmen b) Bigmen +SF (90-95%)
Inside Scoring: a) Bigmen b) Bigmen +SF (90-95%)
Rebound: a) Bigmen b) Bigmen +SF (90-95%)
Shot blocking: a) Bigmen b) Bigmen +SF (90-95%)

Jump Shot: a) Forwards b) Wings c) Guards
1on1 a) Forwards b) Wings c) Guards

3. Gaining Minutes
Let your trainees gain minutes at one of the positions you chose in point 2.. They get full training when they get 48 minutes at one of the positions you chose.

____

This way you can
- play your Bigmen Trainee/ Guard trainee at SF for off position trainee at 95% training speed.
- train your SF at his original position at reduced speed or at SG, PF for full training
- train 6 players or 3 players
- just train off position as you did before
- train two trainees in your training game or 3 trainees if you train with reduced speed.

* training speed

I get what you are saying , Ijust think it is complicated for user and developer to make it.
Simpler to just get rid of % penalty in current system and/or lower it.

that is kind of what I described in the alternative option 2b. I would be happy about this too. as long as you can train the B-skills of your bigmantrainee or your guard at SF for a small increase (>90% training speed) I would be fine with it.

but the 48minutes thing is something else that is bothering me. and simply adding more multi-positions would not fix it, because you could just train 6 players at the same time then.

I think the idea of choosing 3 trainees makes sense if you think about it. You tell your coach and your players which players will have individual training with the coach this week. they train with him, but they only get better if they get to practice their new learned skill in a real game situation (there for 48minutes at a position)

I would prefer simplified as-

pick the guys you want trained.
Pick the skill they train in.
If htey get 48 they are trained

would be nice, but I think the developers don't want to abolish the idea of offposition training completly.

However, this is just an idea for a simple fix. If there are enough resources or not and if this idea is progressive is something the developers have to decide. I just want to get some opinions of the managers if they would be happy with such a system and if they think it is reasonable.

I really hate this. My favorite trainee is 26 years old. he hast a TSP of 129.

last time he played his position was at age 19. since then I see stuff like this

Private League: at SF

16-29
3-7 3Pt
8 Rebound
3 Assist
3 Steals
1 Block
37 Points

League Game: at PG
4-17 FG
0-7 3Pt
9 Rebound
3 Assist
3+ TO

he only plays 1 time a week, while sitting at the bench the whole time. Its kind of frustrating...also my PG has to play SF for him and isnt much good at this either...

/edit: I was frustrated, so this post turned out like this. but still imagine you have an Andrew Wiggins-like talent and if you want to train him, you have to play him at PG and let rubio start at SF.

Last edited by jonte at 4/20/2016 3:55:20 AM

My take on this:

BB will probably want to keep Position-training, since it's part of the fundamentals of the game.
But I propose the following way to new and improved BB-training imo.

* Availability
Make all form of training available for all positions and drop the trainingspeedloss(at least lower the effect) due to position.
Example: Lets make Pressure available for Centers, centers are usually very tall and gets a little loss in trainingspeed in "guardskills" anyway.

* Positions
You can choose "1,2,3,4 or team(5)" when it comes to positions, but you can select PG,SG and C for "passing" if you desire. Trainingspeed reduces as usual with more positions selected!

* Osmosis?
Give players a (very?)small portion of the selected training even if they played in other positions.
This way your starters, benchplayers all get a little bit of training. They still need to play their minutes to get training. Much like in Hattrick.

* Drop 1pos?
To limit "out of position training" even further, BB could opt to get rid of the "1pos training". This will force managers to select atleast two positions, but also train MORE players. Making it easier to play players in their right position.
Perhaps a slight increase in trainingspeed needs to be added... So players can get to the same level as with 1pos now.
My thought is that many managers will chose to play their two starters more then 48 minutes over the week, sacrificing one or even two trainingspots to get better results in league- and cup-games since the loss of training is not as significant as before.
I'm still pondering this last suggestion, it appeals to me, but I have not thought about it too long to be sure where I stand.

- More flexible training and tactical flexibility in lineups to the people!

Just keep current system.

Just because others are better at training/buying players, doesnt mean we need changes. You cant have everything... So either sacrifice training or keep training on "wrong" position.