BuzzerBeater Forums

5 seasons traning SF's and yes i prefer a change to make the training a little bit easier and im not the only one saying this...

as you say it: a littlebit easier.

Getting single position training for SF spot would make it a lot easier.

I'm not sure if this is something you prefer or not, let us know, and all other people training SFs too, please tell us how you think about it.

I think the training system is fine as it is. I'm training SFs and I find it enjoyable (for now at least).

Because right now you don't have to use him at the wrong position. Training a SF means that 90% you have to use him at his weakest position and you have the outcome of your training at the deep end.

I planned to train a SF but i change my mind, theorically the player need 83 weeks to be the SF i want.
Here the training position :

1 : 15
2/3 : 9
3/4 : 2
4/5 : 20
5 : 22
Team : 15

So i could use him at the SF spot only 26 weeks. So basically i will pay him a lot for almost no real impact till i finish his training it's a little bit too hardcore.

Last edited by Cydius at 3/1/2011 10:18:08 AM

data like this is what we need to show people around. I seen too often times the SF being the weakest player in national teams or all star starters. This are squads composed of large group where all stars comes from the 16 teams in the division and national comes from whoever is from that nation. Meaning when you pick a giant poll of players you rarely to never come out with SF being nothing but the worst of the starters.

The data you provided shows why that's the case, simply it takes much much longer it isn't worth it to train SF. Which makes sense why national teams cant pick good SF or all star teams. The disparity is large enough its almost like Centers being on average 2.5 times more expensive than all the other positions. Change has to be made

5 seasons traning SF's and yes i prefer a change to make the training a little bit easier and im not the only one saying this...

as you say it: a littlebit easier.

Getting single position training for SF spot would make it a lot easier.

I'm not sure if this is something you prefer or not, let us know, and all other people training SFs too, please tell us how you think about it.

I was going to answer but Cydius post is brilliant(maybe some more weeks on the PG position i would say).

The hardest part it comes when you put him as a PG to train OD(which takes lot of time) you can lose lots of matchs only because your offensive flow is not working or imagine your SF has a weak pass that will hurt and maybe you will have to train some passing to dont suffer when you put him to train OD in the PG position.

- I suggest a change on the OD training positions to make it more reliable for the SF's.

I suggest a change on the OD training positions to make it more reliable for the SF's.

Totally agree. What about the posibility of unipositional training of ID and OD in the SF spot?

Most of the time we have to train SF at unipositional training, but when it comes the time to train jump shoot, we dont have unipositional training option. It would be grate too to train unipositional Jump shoot, rising JR and IS as secondary skills, as with the training (3/4). Buying new trainable players just to train SFs in their last training cicle its an extra economic effort. Otherwise you will loose training posibilities.

Training SF in OD is a big deal, especially since so many SFs are really JS freaks with just enough rebounding and IS or ID skill to play SF.

if they are JS freaks with barely enough ID and reb, then that is because managers create them that way.

even IF there would be a single position training available for SF, then they STILL would be the least on the national teams.
Guards and inside men can be trained in 1 area, for SF you need to train 2 areas, so the SF will always be weaker in both areas then the other players, and thus being the weakest player on the team.

If someone is training a PF or C, there is no way someone is going to be able to get the Sf the same level of inside training, as he also needs to take care of outside training.

If people wheren't so focussed on trying to improve (or make it easier) the training part, they might have noticed SFs playing at PG (for instance, and I also think playing at C, but didn't test that yet,) DO perform well when the right tactics are chosen. So in fact that already is an improvement in the direction that is being asked here, it just needs to be discovered.

even IF there would be a single position training available for SF, then they STILL would be the least on the national teams.
Guards and inside men can be trained in 1 area, for SF you need to train 2 areas, so the SF will always be weaker in both areas then the other players, and thus being the weakest player on the team.

Not if your split it 50/50 in training progress so if you had strictly SF training you give 50% to OD training & 50% to ID if you trained defense for example, and say the player happen to be 5'9 where he isn't fit to play SF due to short size then he'll barely like usual not improve 50% in ID and will improve only 50% in OD opposed to 100% if he was to be trained in pressure which stirctly focuses in OD. Meaning you shouldn't train 5'9 player at that SF, it would be most optimal to train a guy at SF who is the average BB height which is 6'7 so at that height his training progress in OD & ID would be equivelant for each as if you trained a 5'9 player at OD for that 1 week and divide it by 2 and do the same with ID. Given you divide each of the 2 skillset by 2 that way you don't make it so super short or super tall guy would benefit from such training cause you really would be giving them half the training speed considering training their other super weak skill would hardly progress.

It should be such If you trained a player for 4 years at SF for example, he would grow according to the current settings as if he was trained 2 seasons at guard and 2 seasons at center, being that age factors into growth for each season he'd train half the times on guard skillset and the other half at center. If a 5'9 trained at SF for 4 years it would be as if he got trained at guard for only 2 years and the barely pops he got at center training fom 2 years.
This way you have complete fairness, balance, and a league that's not only suited for super short at super tall being most prosporous in growth

Last edited by Coach_Gil at 3/3/2011 12:28:53 PM

as you are saying completely the same as I do (unless I get it wrong), I don't get why you start with "not if"

:)

you say it yourself: as if he would have trained 2 seasons outside and 2 seasons inside.

so, the guards will have trained 4 seasons outside, and the inside men 4 seasons inside, so both groups would have had double the amount of training, where it matters most... which was exactly what I was saying.

Even if you want more balanced players and will not train solely on inside or outside for these players, the optimal share of training will not be over 3+1 , I estimate, so they will still have had a full season more trainnig on their primary skills, and will also have been able to work away any real weakness in the season of secondary skilltraining.

But, because this is the same for everyone, the players facing off against each other have a chance to be equally strong.

if they are JS freaks with barely enough ID and reb, then that is because managers create them that way.

That's an excuse I often read(saying it's the manager mistake or fault), but it's not only about JS, it's also about what passing skill the SF has to play on the PG position, and ofc what OD has.

even IF there would be a single position training available for SF, then they STILL would be the least on the national teams.

Well i dont really know what exactly you want to say there, but you can't compare the global situation of teams with NT's since only the best join the NT's, but the most importing position on a NT is the SF(at least for me).

Anyway, on a NT a center can play as a PF or a SG can play as a SF(depending on secundary skills), because the performance is more ore less the same(changing the position doesn't affect a lot), but if you have a SF playing on the PF or on the SG position there's a huge difference on the performance( on the negative way)

If people wheren't so focussed on trying to improve (or make it easier) the training part, they might have noticed SFs playing at PG (for instance, and I also think playing at C, but didn't test that yet,) DO perform well when the right tactics are chosen. So in fact that already is an improvement in the direction that is being asked here, it just needs to be discovered. :)

Well, going to disagree again. If you have trained a SF you might have noticied that you have to sacrifice a lot and this sacrifice means playing the SF most of the times out of position. The most affected position when this kind of changes come, it's always playing the SF on the PG position that's all we are saying.

We don't need to discover America xD, even if you play one tactic or another the low performance of the SF on the PG it's still the same.


PD: From my pov, you can't always say it's the manager mistake, i've read that excuse in a lot of suggestions threads and it's not true, but it's really easy to say it as an 'argument'.

Last edited by Marot at 3/3/2011 3:11:16 PM