BuzzerBeater Forums

lets imagine if we had a training system where any position could be trained in any skill..

if that were the case wouldnt we want a PG training rebounding not to be as effective as a PF training rebounding?

so even if we gave SF more training options wouldnt the logical setup be that the SF was able to train a lot of things at just an average level and nothing at a excellent level. It would be silly if the SF could train everything as well as other positions, and if everything was equivalent then there would be no meaning to positions really.

So if thats the case, how much different is the current system than that? I would agree its a little different... but in the end how much faster would you want the SF to train say Jump Shot than they currently are able to by doing PG/SG/SF at jump shot? I think it would not be hugely large.

did anyone even thought of how effectove the training would be for 3 guys?

honestly i want a training for sf but if it would make 3 players train a single skill how much time would it be needed to get results aside from actually dragging your players from getting any result.

surely level 6 and 7 doctors are again going to be so high everything goes slow for bb universe!

there has to be a different set of training for sf, because he needs to versatile in everything

if anyone already post this just ignore mine.

lets imagine if we had a training system where any position could be trained in any skill..

if that were the case wouldnt we want a PG training rebounding not to be as effective as a PF training rebounding?

so even if we gave SF more training options wouldnt the logical setup be that the SF was able to train a lot of things at just an average level and nothing at a excellent level. It would be silly if the SF could train everything as well as other positions, and if everything was equivalent then there would be no meaning to positions really.

So if thats the case, how much different is the current system than that? I would agree its a little different... but in the end how much faster would you want the SF to train say Jump Shot than they currently are able to by doing PG/SG/SF at jump shot? I think it would not be hugely large.

You don't consider a thing,at this moment
THERE IS ONLY A TRAINING FOR SF PLAYING IN HIS ROLE,JUMP SHOT FOR SF-PF;WHILE FOR THE OTHER POSITION(PG-SG;PF-C) THERE ARE ALL THE ADEQUATE TRAINING
I aplogize with MODs,GMs,and BBs to write with capital characters,but some users really doesn't understand that,if a SG or a PF can train himself playing as PG or C without lose efficency during the games,a SF can not make this
So we request only ONE training which is not faster than the combination of the training in ID and OD in the separate roles in which they had to play to train himself now,and specific skills of the frontcourt and of the backcourt as Passing,Rebounding,Jump Range,Handling,Driving and Shot Blocking must have trained however in other roles

Last edited by Steve Karenn at 1/12/2009 10:20:05 AM

calm down.. i do understand perfectly.

i do think the training should probably be tweaked, but I think it shouldnt be to allow for single training on skills for SFs, for a number of reasons.

1. Unfairness to current SF trainers
2. Realism in that SFs should be able to be trained at a lower rate than all other positions but be able to be trained in a wider variety of skills. If SFs were able to be trained at the same rate in the wider variety of skills then everyone would train SFs and then play gaurds and forwards out of position at SF. Imagine you could train both your center and your point gaurd at jump shot by playing them at SF and neither were particularly poorly out of position. As of now you need to play your SF at SG if you want a little bit better passing and PG if you want a lot better training at passing. This seems to be to be at least the SORT of tradeoff one wants the system to have. If you want optimal training you have to sacrifice, not having any tradeoffs is stupid.

That being said, I think there is a real question as to whether the current system has the right QUANTITATIVE tradeoff. Training SFs at their position should result in a reasonably skilled SF, not as good as a SF who was yanked around out of position to get personal attention on all his skills to the detriment of his team, but good enough that he is a reasonable choice to have on a team consisting of his peers (same starting age/potential/training time).

1. Unfairness to current SF trainers
2. Realism in that SFs should be able to be trained at a lower rate than all other positions but be able to be trained in a wider variety of skills. If SFs were able to be trained at the same rate in the wider variety of skills then everyone would train SFs and then play gaurds and forwards out of position at SF. Imagine you could train both your center and your point gaurd at jump shot by playing them at SF and neither were particularly poorly out of position. As of now you need to play your SF at SG if you want a little bit better passing and PG if you want a lot better training at passing. This seems to be to be at least the SORT of tradeoff one wants the system to have. If you want optimal training you have to sacrifice, not having any tradeoffs is stupid

if you say that,excuse me,but you don't understand
i was calm also in the previous message,i wrote with capital charachters to make my message more clear but it had no effect
I repeat again:I'm a current SF trainer,and I can't imagine how this type of training could penalize the current SF trainer,who have rather the advantage to coan put their SF in their original role
The second thing you say,i think it's conceptical wrong,also now i can train my center in jump shot if i want,out of position,but you don't consider that jump shot for a center is a surplus,a secondary skill,to train his primary skill he can play in his role.And we don't request a great variety of training,but ONE training,which have some charachteristics that i wrote in the previous message,and which has the only advantage,I repeat again,to consent to the SF trainers to make their player in their basic role

After thinking, I have kind of reconsidered my position on this. I'm just neutral now - I don't care one way or the other.

regarding calmness... my apology it is very hard to detect the difference between yelling and emphasis in capital letters over the internet, this isnt your fault, it just comes with trying to communicate in text only.

second, I might be misunderstanding you because your writing is not very clear. I'm not trying to be insulting, I just want to be clear that I might not be understanding you correctly.

regarding fairness) any change which changes the valuation of current SFs is going to affect SF trainers. You might not see that as a large problem, but others have expressed that they feel strongly that it would, and i can see how they might feel that way.

on the second point, I dont completely follow your argument, so let me sketch out what I think you are saying....

you say, I can train my center in jump shot by playing him at PG, but that is not his primary skill.. where as a SF you feel you need to play out of position to train his primary skill, and so you want one skill to be dedicated to the SF position, and so you would have like... single position driving be available for SF, and then maybe Driving SG/SF and then Driving SF/PF/SG ... etc etc...

I think that would create a certain symettry amognst the positions if that were done, but I think the primary skill of a SF is that he is well rounded, and so the most appropriate way to do that is to have a training system in which the SF can effectively train at many skills, but not optimally train as those optimal trainings are reserved for the more specialized roles. That isnt to say you can't play the SF out of position to train optimally, but you have a tradeoff to pay in that case... though presumably a lesser tradeoff than playing C at PG because the SF is more well rounded.

I think the original suggestion is valid. However, I think that Lord of Doom made a very valid rebuttal, which shows that for some the SF training issue is not an issue. To make changes when there is no concensus is foolish. To continue to bicker and flame is childish. Because Dr. J sees it one way and Donkeyman sees it another does not make one right and the other wrong. It means that there is more than one approach to the issue.

There are no single position trainings for PF. Saying it is "nicely bundled" with C doesn't make it single position. A check of the training speed analysis page shows that training C only is faster than C / PF.

Perhaps a wingmen OD option and a forwards ID option would be a compromise.