BuzzerBeater Forums

Yeah that would be nice too, but I believe they just started out with raw numbers and will finetune as more information is available.

After some more thinking, I guess this is also a matter of mindset. If the options would be reversed chronologically, it would be much easier to accept. So if the old way would have been training a Center at his own position in passing at a slower speed is the only thing possible, and then a change would be announced that from then on it's possible to train him at PG position at a faster speed, it would be welcomed.

I like having the option to choose between natural position at a slower speed and unnatural at faster speed. I do think the numbers should be tweaked some more in order for both options to be viable.

I like the different options as well.

I guess for the really active trainers that want to get a player into the NT or U21 or train the full potential of an MVP player the new slower options aren't that interesting until he is maybe a 27/28 year olds and just needs a few last pops without training out of position (especially with the high salary guys).

But for the more casual players it might be really nice that they now don't have to choose between training and setting the best lineup. Especially if the potential is all-star or lower the loss in speed isn't as problematic.

On the forums it sometimes feels as if everyone is the first kind of player. But maybe this change is nice for the casual player most of all.

Last edited by Tesse at 10/24/2014 6:11:05 AM

Come on Mr Trainerman Im eagerly awaiting your contribution the the thread (264484.1)


Id love you to put forward the number priority and then justify it being the number one priority

Thank you all for your input. We will certainly think about changing the percentages (they are not set in stone) and we'll see how it goes. So far, I like the feedback.

Three position SG/SF/PF is 80% as fast as three position PG/SG/SF.

I very much appreciate that the programmers have continued to improve the training programming.

That said, there are still some illogical aspects. In your example above, the SG's and SF's are the same, and both are examples of three-position training. Yet the third position affects even the training of the same SG's and SF's by a full 20%. It is illogical that the same SG's and SF's being trained with one other position should be that different, or even different at all. They are the same SG's and SF's, and the number of players being trained is the same. Logically, only the third position should be affected.

Three position SG/SF/PF is 80% as fast as three position PG/SG/SF.

I very much appreciate that the programmers have continued to improve the training programming.

That said, there are still some illogical aspects. In your example above, the SG's and SF's are the same, and both are examples of three-position training. Yet the third position affects even the training of the same SG's and SF's by a full 20%. It is illogical that the same SG's and SF's being trained with one other position should be that different, or even different at all. They are the same SG's and SF's, and the number of players being trained is the same. Logically, only the third position should be affected.

That would like saying that Inside Defense should train as fast for C when doing PF/C two positions training than when training only C in one position training. That's how Buzzerbeater has always worked.

Actually, I disagree with that - the equivalent suggestion would be that inside defense for SF/PF would train the PF at the same speed as inside defense for PF/C. The intent of the suggestion is that a player should not receive a penalty for being "out of position" if he's training in a position that would be trained in the old training regimen. So with this proposal, inside defense for SF/PF would train PF at the same speed as normal two position ID, while the SF would receive training at the reduced speed.

My opinion on that is that the idea has merit and makes sense, but of course it then causes issues like in Hattrick's winger training where some minutes (minutes at winger) are more valuable than others (minutes at wingback). So in the ID for SF/PF scenario, training would first prioritize minutes at PF and then if 48 minutes are not reached and minutes at SF are available, it would then have to add those in with the reduced training speed. It makes things a little more complicated, and I suppose it's unclear whether the benefit in this case is worth the complexity.