BuzzerBeater Forums

but also a more skilled player will improve more quickly

straight from the rules, friend. and i think my limited data bears this out.

Refers to players with multiple high skills, not for players that train a skill that is already high, as far I know.

Last edited by GM-kozlodoev at 2/24/2008 7:59:10 PM

I thought this might be the case too, but i'm not really sure as to what is classified as a 'high' skill. I mean, strong in a skill high or is sensational high? i'm gonna train JR this week and see what happens.

I thought this might be the case too, but i'm not really sure as to what is classified as a 'high' skill. I mean, strong in a skill high or is sensational high? i'm gonna train JR this week and see what happens.

Well, basically, the higher the difference between the skill trained and the highest skill of a player, the faster it trains. Like you, I am not sure how big the difference should be to be considered "high".

I had the same thing happen. I trained 4 players in RB (C/PF, lvl 9/8 trainer) for 8 weeks, and had only one player pop in Inside Shot.

It appears that what we thought we knew about the training of secondaries was highly optimistic. It will be very difficult to see just how long it takes to have a secondary skill pop twice, because the primary skill will increase very quickly (perhaps too quickly). In order to really know the speed of the secondary training, one would have to train the same primary until the secondary popped twice; from my experience that would mean training only one skill for more than a season and creating mono-skilled behemoths in the process.

For instance, I'd suggest an 18-20yo player will pop in RB twice every three weeks (I'd assume this is also accurate for all other skills, but haven't tested it yet) or 7-8 levels per season (not including playoffs). So a player could easily be trained from respectable to wondrous in a primary skill during the course of one season, without his secondaries popping twice.

The prevailing wisdom around these forums has always been to rotate training. I am apt to agree, as longer I trained RB during my 8-week study, the more I saw my team suffering in other areas (i.e., I now have a player with prominent RB that still has atrocious SB).

@WFU03:
Perhaps it would be best to remove the suggested # of weeks from secondaries altogether in the first post. For instance:

RB C/PF
Trains RB 1-3 weeks
Also trains IS, ID

the futher away from the other skills the skill you are training you get the slower it promotes...

if all the skills on the player is at the same level the pops will be more often.

For the other training types, players will improve more quickly not only with additional playing time, but also a more skilled player will improve more quickly. For example, a great inside defender and rebounder will find it easier to improve his shot blocking than a poor inside defender and poor rebounder would. This encourages you to develop players with a combination of skills, but there are many combinations of skills which work well together -- you can develop players who will be a good fit for your team's needs.

For example, a great inside defender and rebounder will find it easier to improve his shot blocking than a poor inside defender and poor rebounder would.

If (in this example) inside shot and rebound are high, training in shot blocking will be faster, in a sense of "catching up". Related skills to high skills are working as if on a rubber band.

It does on the opposite positively not say that the high skills will benefit from faster training. Au contraire, it is ment to encourage(s) you to develop players with a combination of skills. Higher skills training higher would do the opposite, create mono-monsters.

Fastest training will thus be training lower skills. It remains to find out, how big the distance between the leading (high) skill and the lower ones should be. For instance, should one train skill A to 10 and the catch up with the remaining ones (B, C,...) on 7. I would not say that balanced skills have the best effect. The best effect will be seen if one or more skills "take the lead".

I had the same thing happen. I trained 4 players in RB (C/PF, lvl 9/8 trainer) for 8 weeks, and had only one player pop in Inside Shot.

It appears that what we thought we knew about the training of secondaries was highly optimistic. It will be very difficult to see just how long it takes to have a secondary skill pop twice, because the primary skill will increase very quickly (perhaps too quickly). In order to really know the speed of the secondary training, one would have to train the same primary until the secondary popped twice; from my experience that would mean training only one skill for more than a season and creating mono-skilled behemoths in the process.

For instance, I'd suggest an 18-20yo player will pop in RB twice every three weeks (I'd assume this is also accurate for all other skills, but haven't tested it yet) or 7-8 levels per season (not including playoffs). So a player could easily be trained from respectable to wondrous in a primary skill during the course of one season, without his secondaries popping twice.

The prevailing wisdom around these forums has always been to rotate training. I am apt to agree, as longer I trained RB during my 8-week study, the more I saw my team suffering in other areas (i.e., I now have a player with prominent RB that still has atrocious SB).

@WFU03:
Perhaps it would be best to remove the suggested # of weeks from secondaries altogether in the first post. For instance:

RB C/PF
Trains RB 1-3 weeks
Also trains IS, ID

the futher away from the other skills the skill you are training you get the slower it promotes...

if all the skills on the player is at the same level the pops will be more often.

That was not my experience with rebounding at all. I found all pops to come at rather regular intervals, regardless of the player's side skills. For instance, during my 8 weeks of rebounding training last season, I trained two players who started out with the following skills:

Player A:
Inside Shot: average Inside Def.: strong
Rebounding: average Shot Blocking: average

Player B:
Inside Shot: average Inside Def.: strong
Rebounding: mediocre Shot Blocking: atrocious

After 8 weeks of RB, the players looked like this:

Player A:
Inside Shot: average Inside Def.: strong
Rebounding: prolific Shot Blocking: average

Player B:
Inside Shot: average Inside Def.: strong
Rebounding: prominent Shot Blocking: atrocious

As the players were 19 and 20yo at the time, all pops came at regular intervals of 1-2 weeks (or more accurately, 2 pops every three weeks). I find it had to believe that either player's strong inside defense helped them pop more rapidly, or that Player B's atrocious shot blocking did much to speed up his training. (I have only continued to train Player B at the request of other users, to test how far up the rest of his skills can go before the atrocious SB really starts to hinder his training in other inside skills)

The only reason I stopped rotating my training was to further the discussion on Training Speed Analysis. We're all in this to learn something. What we can sometimes learn is that the rules are a little vague in places and it takes skeptics among the userbase to discover exactly where the lines are drawn. If we all blindly follow what the rules say, we never get to find out what they really mean.

but if it's the difference that matter so much, why has my 20 YO pg with skills at average or higher in all the "guard" skills only had one pop in JS over 3 weeks of training? Also, where did you get this info from, regarding the difference in skills mattering more than the skill itself? Did you just infer it from the rules or is this discussed else where?

someone get this man some supporter

someone other than me, that is

edit - what, you two with the 1-2 week pops? so you've had actual back-to-back pops in the same skill?

Last edited by brian at 2/25/2008 7:50:20 PM

but if it's the difference that matter so much, why has my 20 YO pg with skills at average or higher in all the "guard" skills only had one pop in JS over 3 weeks of training? Also, where did you get this info from, regarding the difference in skills mattering more than the skill itself? Did you just infer it from the rules or is this discussed else where?

Here is what the rules say:

For example, a great inside defender and rebounder will find it easier to improve his shot blocking than a poor inside defender and poor rebounder would. This encourages you to develop players with a combination of skills, but there are many combinations of skills which work well together -- you can develop players who will be a good fit for your team's needs.

Technically, as I understand this text, training a skill that is surging ahead of the others in a particular skill group will be slower relative to the skills that are lagging behind. I cannot say for sure whether this entails slowing down training for the surging skill or speeding up training for the lagging one, but it shouldn't really matter. The obvious conclusion from this part of the rules is skill level matters relatively, not nominally.

For example, a great inside defender and rebounder will find it easier to improve his shot blocking than a poor inside defender and poor rebounder would.

If (in this example) inside shot and rebound are high, training in shot blocking will be faster, in a sense of "catching up". Related skills to high skills are working as if on a rubber band.

It does on the opposite positively not say that the high skills will benefit from faster training. Au contraire, it is ment to encourage(s) you to develop players with a combination of skills. Higher skills training higher would do the opposite, create mono-monsters.

Fastest training will thus be training lower skills. It remains to find out, how big the distance between the leading (high) skill and the lower ones should be. For instance, should one train skill A to 10 and the catch up with the remaining ones (B, C,...) on 7. I would not say that balanced skills have the best effect. The best effect will be seen if one or more skills "take the lead".

excatly what I mean, if a skills is a bit lower than the other, it trains faster than the others...

so it is "best" way to train them with multi-skill....it becomes fastest...

I had the same thing happen. I trained 4 players in RB (C/PF, lvl 9/8 trainer) for 8 weeks, and had only one player pop in Inside Shot.

It appears that what we thought we knew about the training of secondaries was highly optimistic. It will be very difficult to see just how long it takes to have a secondary skill pop twice, because the primary skill will increase very quickly (perhaps too quickly). In order to really know the speed of the secondary training, one would have to train the same primary until the secondary popped twice; from my experience that would mean training only one skill for more than a season and creating mono-skilled behemoths in the process.

For instance, I'd suggest an 18-20yo player will pop in RB twice every three weeks (I'd assume this is also accurate for all other skills, but haven't tested it yet) or 7-8 levels per season (not including playoffs). So a player could easily be trained from respectable to wondrous in a primary skill during the course of one season, without his secondaries popping twice.

The prevailing wisdom around these forums has always been to rotate training. I am apt to agree, as longer I trained RB during my 8-week study, the more I saw my team suffering in other areas (i.e., I now have a player with prominent RB that still has atrocious SB).

@WFU03:
Perhaps it would be best to remove the suggested # of weeks from secondaries altogether in the first post. For instance:

RB C/PF
Trains RB 1-3 weeks
Also trains IS, ID

the futher away from the other skills the skill you are training you get the slower it promotes...

if all the skills on the player is at the same level the pops will be more often.

That was not my experience with rebounding at all. I found all pops to come at rather regular intervals, regardless of the player's side skills. For instance, during my 8 weeks of rebounding training last season, I trained two players who started out with the following skills:

Player A:
Inside Shot: average Inside Def.: strong
Rebounding: average Shot Blocking: average

Player B:
Inside Shot: average Inside Def.: strong
Rebounding: mediocre Shot Blocking: atrocious

After 8 weeks of RB, the players looked like this:

Player A:
Inside Shot: average Inside Def.: strong
Rebounding: prolific Shot Blocking: average

Player B:
Inside Shot: average Inside Def.: strong
Rebounding: prominent Shot Blocking: atrocious

As the players were 19 and 20yo at the time, all pops came at regular intervals of 1-2 weeks (or more accurately, 2 pops every three weeks). I find it had to believe that either player's strong inside defense helped them pop more rapidly, or that Player B's atrocious shot blocking did much to speed up his training. (I have only continued to train Player B at the request of other users, to test how far up the rest of his skills can go before the atrocious SB really starts to hinder his training in other inside skills)

The only reason I stopped rotating my training was to further the discussion on Training Speed Analysis. We're all in this to learn something. What we can sometimes learn is that the rules are a little vague in places and it takes skeptics among the userbase to discover exactly where the lines are drawn. If we all blindly follow what the rules say, we never get to find out what they really mean.

very sacrificing of you!=)

but if you have had 3 high skills ins sht, ins def, shot blk.....the RB would have promoted faster.

your test is very nice, and right! but i mean that it would have been little different if the other skills would have been higher than RB when you started.