BuzzerBeater Forums

Personally, I don't like the 48min as the marker as it tends to bring those 5-only players lineup games, which are "ugly". Maybe 45 min for everyone would help avoid that?
It's also confusing to have the different training minutes BUT the minimum 48 min (or more) for game shape purposes (they can get full training but still not be in shape).
As for the rest, are you saying (as an example) that if a PG, SG and C (if those were the choices) would train pressing, they would get the same amount of training? Or like your pic shows, the PG would get 100%, the SG 90% and the C 60%? If it's the latter, seems ok to me.

And the max amount of players to be trained/chosen every week? 5? 6? They should be the same for every training, no?
Not sure but it would probably be better for game shape to go from 45 (or 50) to whatever, as those 5 player lineup games would probably be coming back strong if the exact value needed is 48 min.
At least, you wouldn't have to get players out of position just for the sake of being trained, which would be a plus too

I actually wanted to make a similar suggestion to make training more intuitive, but a little different and more in line with the current way it works.

So some UX changes would be to place the training options at the top of the page (instead of the training court, that could be below). Also, when you select a training you would see a description of the chosen training so you can actually know what you're doing instead of needing to open the manual for that.

I'd suggest the default option when selecting a training would be the whole team. So if you just select pressure and nothing else, the whole team gets trained in pressure, since that would be a normal expectation.

Then there's another option of chosing focus on positions. You can select any and all positions, and there will also be a description explaning to more spread your focus is, the less effective the training will be. Also, training depends on the game situations the player is in, and the more situations there are, the more effective training is. So if you train OD, your guards will get the most game situations to apply that training while your C gets less opportunities. This could function the same as it is currently, just a different interface and way of chosing positions for focus. I think it will be more intuitive, because if you don't select any focus, your players will still receive training. Currently new manager often have the expectation that their new young talent will develop but they haven't set the right training/playing position combination and results won't be there.

Also, as a small addition I would think it's great if even when selecting a focus on position, all other players receive some training as well. That's just more in line with reality and general expectations, and makes the "focus" more logically (it's not that you set only training for 1 position, you just give extra attention to that position).

Optionally, I would think it would be great if we can build on the game situations, by having training effected by tactics. So if you train Inside scoring, training will be more effective if you use Inside Offenses like Look Inside and Low Post.

Another option to add would be focus on players like you (Eddy) suggests. You can select any and all players, but with the same warning that more players means less focus and effective training.

In short, this suggestion is to change the UI to make it more intuitive plus some optional changes on how training functions.

I made a Google Sheet to show what I mean:
(https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/18x0TJIqpOhVa8k9c_h...)

Last edited by Jeründerbar at 8/22/2022 5:14:04 AM

Now, when you have to collect 41 minutes to 27 and older players it is even harder to train in one position. If you put player to reserve spot it will mostly play more minutes than 8 as a sub, especially if stamina of your starting player is low.

Surprisingly, there is as much as 55.8% support. We should attempt to make a change, and I believe this change will not affect the players currently in training. A more logical and flexible training approach will be friendlier to beginners.The training speed is only affected by height, not by position, which is very good.

For such a major community-driven change to even be considered, I'd say you need to get at least 75% approval with at least 200 votes.

And isn't that like asking 100 newbies to come to the forum, read it, and want to vote?

It is clear that veterans do not want this change because the current situation benefits them doubly due to their experience and the difficulty. But veterans are the vast majority of those who vote and participate in the forum.

Even with equal conditions, asking for 200 votes in a few days, I think there are more people than write on the forum in a month.

In any case, the survey would have to be repeated if we want to know the current opinion and if we want it to be significant, the period for voting should be extended to a sufficient number of days.

Coming from Organized Basketball, I'm not sure why we're 'choosing' a select few and ignoring everyone else.

There has to be a way where everyone gets some level of base training Weekly, without just flooding Pops all over the place, with the opportunity to focus extra training on a select few.

What happens when we Train C Shot Blocking? We just sent everyone else home all week, no practice for them, and make sure you're at the game?

How often does on Train for Team things, Stamina/GS/FT? Everyone could use some of that, but we don't even want ANYONE to touch those, because it takes away from 'Building our Bear'.

I know it's beloved because we love this game... but it was ALWAYS a dumb system for Training. Then tying that into Minutes Played in Games compounds that... no one ever got good through practice and developed INTO a Starter? Nope, only Starters ever improve in BB.

If we sit back and look at it as a fan of Organized Basketball, none of it makes any sense. But we're Gamers, so we're here learning the system and then gaming it to our best advantage.