BuzzerBeater Forums

i would love to know what type of games you watch. Some team put their point guard in the post when they feel they have an advantage to post up a smaler or weaker player. And jthe bucks once player the starting backourt in the post and had their big men shoot the thee. As a coach you should have freedom on how to train your players. If you have a 6"6 point gaurd why cant he post up someone who is 6"3. If a team wants to go small and out run me why cant i go big and post them up.

I played college ball and was a shooting guard and i practiced in the post. Not as much as our centers but if needed in a game i could post up the other team 2 guard and our centers worked on dribbling and shooting but not as much sas me. Its a common thing in training. Any good coach trains all his players in everything until it is obvious that he cant do something and then you do it a bit to keep him from getting worse.

Last edited by GM-ksachs at 5/9/2008 12:48:46 PM

My 2 cents on training:

While realism is good, there are two other main things to consider from a gameplay perspective:

Functionality: The training system should be able to provide adequate training where it's needed. For example, SFs need quite a bit of rebounding, since they're the third most important source in the team rating. However, the only way to get them this particular type of training is to either play them out of position at PF, or train the whole team in rebounding. And team training cannot be very fast, since it can potentially train up to 15 guys. So a clear failure there.

OTOH, I don't think it should be easy to create a SF who is proficient in both outside and inside skills at the same time. My impression is that by using different offensive tactics you can get away with a primarily perimeter-oriented or primarily inside-oriented SF.

My suggestion will be to have some more of the perimeter training regimes the option of 'Swingment' , and likewise -- 'Forwards' to the inside training regimes in order to allow SFs to train in 2-player training regimes, as opposed to 3-player training ones.

Which brings me to my second point:

Simplicity: I am, for one, strongly opposed to giving managers the opportunity of selecting their own training positions. I think the preset trainings system is more logical and less chaotic. Plus it is somewhat foolproof for newbies, as it guarantees that they train something which is at least marginally useful. Otherwise we'll see someone who's just starting up train SB for PGs, which is a recipe for disaster.

As far as WFUs post is concerned, he is right to an extend. But you can easily see this in your own game engine code: if a player is supposed to use a particular skill often, then he should be able to train it effectively. I know no skill is ever completely useless in BB, but some are clearly less useless than others

Hopefully this made a little bit of sense. Cheers on the good initiative -- at least you're not losing out on good weather while you're locked up in the office reading the forums ;)

Edit to add:
Weather in Boston
90% chance of rain
High, 59 F, ~13 C

Great day for poker too.

I guess we can agree to disagree on the 'all training to every position type'.

I also think the game should reward good management, but new users come in with no knowledge of the game, so it is important to protect them from themselves until they learn the ropes a bit. No-one was born with a college degree, not even in BB ;)

On the weather: It's reasonably warm, but kind of gloomy. Looks like it might start raining (again) every minute. Toss in the fact that it was probably 75 F yesterday with bright and sunny skies, and you get where I'm coming from.

What about trying to teach insideShot to a point guard? You can have him work on it in practice, but when it comes to the time of the game, he really isn't going to get any practice posting people up.

I fully agree with you on this.

A second example. If I want my C to learn how to shot 3 pointers, there is no way he can do it while staying in the painted area and taking two 3pt a game.

I would not simplify the training system too much. It is, in my opinion, the best feature of BB (together with the match viewer). It really takes good managing to train effectively and it is probably the only way for a weaker team to fill the gap with reacher and stronger ones.

It might be worth adding a couple more trainings for SF, but not more than that, imho.

I have to agree with WFU on this one, and have thought this since back to the beta days.

It's seems more unrealistic to have a PG play at C to get training then to be able to just train that skill at the preferred position.

Plus, more flexibility in training should only improve the ability to create balanced players, which is key to BB.

Both of these examples aren't too good, since they're not universal. A PG routinely uses his IS in a Look Inside/Low Post formation, and a C shoots plenty of three pointers in a Princeton tactic.

The thing is, the system is self-correcting there: the better the three-point shooting on a C becomes, the more he will start shooting them, on average, since his three-pointer will become a relatively better shot.

So one shouldn't get too carried away with this framework.