BuzzerBeater Forums

Yeah I think the penalty is too big, centers (tall players) are already training slower in guard skills because of the height, why punish them twice this way? I'd say something like a 5% decrease per position would be better.

I also like the new training regimen like outlet passing, seems realistic and balanced. Another idea could be to have tall players slowcap faster at guard skills while training at the same speed. This way you can still make them more balanced quickly without them getting very strong at it, seems realistic and balanced too.

I agree with you.

if i train a C in OD or a PG in IS (examples) they suffer the height effect, if i want to train them in the right position i've to pay a lot (40/50% more) just to be competitive in normal gamea... a slighter balance probably meanings easy way to train Forwards, for sure, but IMO a 75% effect not linked to "far position respect the standard" can be the best solution.

This new update in training are very confusing !!!
If you put procentage on new types of training than make it right, and clear to all.
Example:
pressing :
1. position P (should be basic fastest training =100%)
2. B (80%)
3. SF(70%)
4. PF (60%)
5. C (50%)
6. P/B (???) - is it 50% or 75 % or more or less from basic training on position P ??? What is faster to train -pressing on position C (50%) or pressing for P/B ?
If you want to make changes than explain them clear to all players-this procentage you wrote in training updates means nothing this way !

What about training positions that train other things in the same category?

For example DRIVING for Guards trains JS/HA/DR and for Forwards trains JS/HA/DR and IS. What happens now?

I think it will help...one issue I see though, for example with SF pressure training. Which will be better SF pressure or3 position pressure?

@trainerman: SF pressure, of course. 70% of 1 position pressure training effectiveness is still higher than 100% of the old 3 position training.

I would say, that the new feature would be more balanced with the previous system if the decrease of training speed was a bit lower. ... At the moment I would say that hardcore trainers will still train PA at PG position for big man and people who are thinking about winning games rather that training optimisation will go for game shape or training PA for whole team - making new feature rarely used.

@picia: The decrease in effectiveness needs to be felt. I'm not saying these numbers are set in stone, but for the first iteration of a feature, we'd rather stay on the conservative side. And I disagree with your prognosis - I think many managers will use it.

Yeah I think the penalty is too big, centers (tall players) are already training slower in guard skills because of the height, why punish them twice this way? I'd say something like a 5% decrease per position would be better.

@Jeründerbar: In basketball terms, think of it as a mindset issue; centers just aren't as adept at training playmaking routines as playmakers. It doesn't come naturally to them as it does to the point guards. And now I'm sorry we didn't include a similar explanation in the news post

This new update in training are very confusing !!!
If you put procentage on new types of training than make it right, and clear to all.

@Ogi: We didn't think we need to put the 100% number beside the old training types, but if other users think it's necessary, it's not hard to do. Also, if you're confused, ask, that's why we're here.

What about training positions that train other things in the same category?
For example DRIVING for Guards trains JS/HA/DR and for Forwards trains JS/HA/DR and IS. What happens now?

@Villagkouras: We just made the choice based on common sense. I guess we can't disclose everything, right? It would take the training analisys fun out of it.

The decrease in effectiveness needs to be felt. I'm not saying these numbers are set in stone, but for the first iteration of a feature, we'd rather stay on the conservative side.

In basketball terms, think of it as a mindset issue; centers just aren't as adept at training playmaking routines as playmakers. It doesn't come naturally to them as it does to the point guards. And now I'm sorry we didn't include a similar explanation in the news post

Thank you for your time replying, and don't get me wrong I think it's a good update; extra options are always welcome. I'm glad to see that the numbers aren't set in stone, because as I said I think it's a bit harsh. I'm curious to see how it develops though!

it is a bit offtopic, but i have to admit that i am pleased to see, a) that the BB-staff is willing and capable to make these changes we have seen the last couple of seasons and b) with the way you are open to discussion, new suggestions and how you are trying to explain your motives.

Even if i was sceptical with several Points and Details, I think you are doing a good Job (significantly better then when i started playing this game for the first time (~seasons 17)

@Ogi: We didn't think we need to put the 100% number beside the old training types, but if other users think it's necessary, it's not hard to do. Also, if you're confused, ask, that's why we're here.

The question is whether it will be said straightforward how much slower players train due to two position training instead of the optimal one position. We know now - based on statistics - that for example training IS on positions PF/C is somewhere around 70%-80% of the speed with one position training. If we were given this information than we would be able to make decision on whether we are training two positions or one (not optimal) position - with consequences known.

Now most things regarding training is based on an estimation. However with this new feature that rule is removed to some extend. Will you be willing to unveil also a little bit concerning training on one position/two/three/team ?

And I disagree with your prognosis - I think many managers will use it.

Of course - it will be used out of curiosity. We are curious people. We will test it, try it, and then you will change the numbers (or change + hide) and we will test it and try it once again. Supporters will have the opportunity to try it in the team they care less about - Utopia or the regular one without possible negative consequences.

Don't get me wrong - I am very pleased with this training adjustment - but I believe also, that the disadvantage in training speed should be smaller - to make it in the middle of the gap between one position training/two positions/three/team. If for example team training gives 50% of one position training than training out of position should be closer to 75% than 50%.

@Ogi: We didn't think we need to put the 100% number beside the old training types, but if other users think it's necessary, it's not hard to do. Also, if you're confused, ask, that's why we're here.

if you train pressing on position PG and you wrote that same training for position SG is 80% of that traing, than on position SF 70% of that training and so on-what is procentage on dual position PG/SG compared to basic training on one position PG ???
That was mine question-not why is not written number 100% beside old basic trainig :-)
And that is very important thing to know becouse if that procentage is 75% that makes bit difference considering for example pressing on position SF (70%)


Last edited by Ogi at 10/23/2014 8:22:12 AM

Thanks for clearing that up. I was kind of thinking it was that all 3 were 100% (compared to 1 position) towards one training but i knew that was wrong. Thanks.

@jonte: Thanks for the kind words, I appreciate them and will try to improve the communication aspect even further. I promised to try and be better and these are the results.

We know now - based on statistics - that for example training IS on positions PF/C is somewhere around 70%-80% of the speed with one position training. If we were given this information than we would be able to make decision on whether we are training two positions or one (not optimal) position - with consequences known.

@picia and Ogi: We don't want to reveal everything. It is up to you, the players to figure out the numbers, not on us to just reveal everything, what fun would that be? No fun! Training analysis is a part of the game, and we refuse to just give it up. Btw, it was my initiative to reveal these percentages, but in the original idea we didn't plan to disclose them. What would you say then?