BuzzerBeater Forums

It's obnoxious currently. It should be no more or less challenging than training any other position. There's nothing special about small forwards, per se.

I think the concept of having to play players out of position to train them is completely unrealistic and a poor game design choice. I've shared this before and the BBs disagree. That being said, a small tweak toward allowing you to train a SF while they actually play as a SF would at least help tilt the training in a better direction, if not be the actual overhaul I think would be more beneficial.

So, can you explain what "a small forward per se" actually is?

The problem here is that since a SF can potentially use both his inside and his outside skill with relative efficiency, he should have all of them and as much as possible. This is not true. As a matter of fact, making the appropriate selection for your SF position accounts for more in game strategy than people realize.

By the way, even with the current training system you can train SFs in ID and OD with them playing at their natural position.

I think the concept of having to play players out of position to train them is completely unrealistic and a poor game design choice

i think it's an acceptable trade-off, but not for fundamental skills like the two defenses for our poor SF

I think the concept of having to play players out of position to train them is completely unrealistic and a poor game design choice

i think it's an acceptable trade-off, but not for fundamental skills like the two defenses for our poor SF

Again, you don't have to play SFs out of position unless you want to. Both ID and OD have training regimes that include the SF position.

1. Oh, but there is something special about small forwards. Unlike other positions, who need one specific and quite narrowly limited skill set to function effectively, SFs can come in all sorts of shapes and sizes. There are multiple viable SF skill sets that can work quite well depending on the situation: you don't have to have SFs that are great in both inside and outside defense or in both inside and outside scoring. Any combination of these can do.

2. I have no idea what you mean by this. You suggested seting up a training regime that trains bot ID and OD for forwards. Ergo, apparently he needs to have more of everything that he can use. On the other hand, as I pointed out, semis-specialized SFs are completely viable (e.g. SGs who are not completely hopeless in their inside skills, for example).

3. Apparently not: being able to easily train your SF in all skills he might potentially need is looking for a way to effectively eliminate the need to make the strategic choice about what skills to provide at your SF position.

4. I can't quite understand your point of view: first, it's about playing out of position, then, it's not about playing out of position, but it's about training speed.

Either way, .5 of base speed is not 3-4 weeks but probably more like 4-5 weeks. OD, at least, doesn't really train at 2-3 weeks per 2 positions.


Last edited by GM-kozlodoev at 12/5/2008 12:38:10 PM

I think the concept of having to play players out of position to train them is completely unrealistic and a poor game design choice

i think it's an acceptable trade-off, but not for fundamental skills like the two defenses for our poor SF

Again, you don't have to play SFs out of position unless you want to. Both ID and OD have training regimes that include the SF position.

i admit i deliberately ignore 3-roles and team training regimes, because i'd like to train my players and actually see them pop

i admit i deliberately ignore 3-roles and team training regimes, because i'd like to train my players and actually see them pop

Right. Well, while I am probably too radical in my defense of the status-quo, the thing that we've all heard from the horse's mouth is that SF training is supposed to be reasonably challenging.

So I wouldn't hold my breath for the implementation of the training regime that is the exact arithmetic sum of the efficiencies of OD training for guards and the ID training for big men.

about 2, but both defenses you need when can't guarantee that your opponent plays with a specific monoskill sf.

And you can not argue, that a 7 in one OD skill was everytime enough.

I agree. My suggestion would be "Swingman Defense".

Training options would be:
SF, SG/SF, SF/PF, or SG/SF/PF

It would train:
Outside Defense 0.5x primary skill rate
Inside Defense 0.5x primary skill rate
Inside Shot: secondary skill rate
Jump Shot: secondary skill rate
Rebounding: secondary skill rate

So, guessing at the "normal" training speeds, it could look something like this:
SF
OD: 3-4weeks
ID: 3-4 weeks
IS: 8 weeks
JS: 8 weeks
RB: 8 weeks

SG/SF or SF/PF
OD: 5-6 weeks
ID: 5-6 weeks
IS: 10 weeks
JS: 10 weeks
RB: 10 weeks

SG/SF/PF
OD: 7-8 weeks
ID: 7-8 weeks
IS: 12 weeks
JS: 12 weeks
RB: 12 weeks

I really like your idea, I even think many users would like to see this one on the next season.

I, by my self, have this problem, cause I wanna train just two positions (one of them SF), but it`s just impossible.

4. I can't quite understand your point of view: first, it's about playing out of position, then, it's not about playing out of position, but it's about training speed.

aren't they the same thing? you have to play the SF out of position to get the quickest training speeds with the current training system...

i admit i deliberately ignore 3-roles and team training regimes, because i'd like to train my players and actually see them pop

I know it's just one week's training and therefore not exactly scientific or anything, but I trained 3-position pressure this week and got 5 pops in OD. Including on my starting Center who managed to play a few minutes out of position (in SF role, naturally) in my cup game. What's not to like?