BuzzerBeater Forums

Suggestions > Training Positions

Training Positions

Set priority
Show messages by
This Post:
00
7590.5 in reply to 7590.4
Date: 12/14/2007 11:56:44 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
99
Well you confirm my point then, each manager has his own way of looking at things and therefore why not let him train whatever he wants?...

This Post:
00
7590.6 in reply to 7590.5
Date: 12/14/2007 12:23:22 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
00
I'm not against it, i'm just saying that outside D might be usefull for a center. I would love to have full control over my training aswell.

This Post:
00
7590.7 in reply to 7590.6
Date: 12/14/2007 5:54:23 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
576576
Just seems opening up full control of training fits with the ideals of what the BB's are trying to do with the game. It would allow for even more ability to train well rounded players. Wouldn't the focus on multi-skilled players be bolstered by allowing managers to train PF/C in outside shooting or passing; guards in shot blocking or rebounding; etc.

Another thing this would improve is the ability of managers to train up players to a certain level for when they are too old to train, and then be able to keep them. For instance, if I could train a PF in some outside skills they might grow into a SF which I could keep and not have to sell off after all the time and effort put into training.

"Well, no ones gonna top that." - http://tinyurl.com/noigttt
This Post:
00
7590.8 in reply to 7590.7
Date: 12/15/2007 6:57:55 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
744744
Another thing this would improve is the ability of managers to train up players to a certain level for when they are too old to train, and then be able to keep them. For instance, if I could train a PF in some outside skills they might grow into a SF which I could keep and not have to sell off after all the time and effort put into training.

I'm in complete agreement with you here. To take this idea a bit further, I find the current training system makes attempting to train a highly-skilled SF a nightmare; and should prove extremely tedious for managers training SFs for national teams. In order for a SF to be trained optimally in all skills, he will have to play part of his career at PG, SG, and C to receive maximum training in both inside and outside skills.

(http://www.buzzerbeater.com/community/fedoverview.aspx?fe...)
Keep your friend`s toast, and your enemy`s toaster.
This Post:
00
7590.10 in reply to 7590.9
Date: 12/15/2007 9:08:56 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
744744
In order for a SF to be trained optimally in all skills, he will have to play part of his career at PG, SG, and C to receive maximum training in both inside and outside skills.


Ironically, none at SF.

Edited by WFU03 (12/15/2007 7:45:37 AM CET)


Actually, he can play at SF to train One-on-One, and perhaps Jump Shot (unless Outside Shooting for SG only is a more efficient training method, there isn't much data collected on Outside Shooting).

(http://www.buzzerbeater.com/community/fedoverview.aspx?fe...)
Keep your friend`s toast, and your enemy`s toaster.
This Post:
00
7590.11 in reply to 7590.8
Date: 12/15/2007 6:35:01 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
576576
I guess it would also be an option to move to training other positions easier. For instance, I'm training PF/C and have trained up 2 really good centers and they're getting a little old to train. I could hold onto them, buy a couple SF trainee's, and switch to training SF/PF. Get to keep the players I put so much time into training (training, my way), and continue training the rest of my players.

Finding it difficult to see a reason NOT to have the freedom in training we're all suggesting here.

"Well, no ones gonna top that." - http://tinyurl.com/noigttt
This Post:
00
7590.12 in reply to 7590.11
Date: 12/16/2007 12:06:11 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
744744
I guess it would also be an option to move to training other positions easier. For instance, I'm training PF/C and have trained up 2 really good centers and they're getting a little old to train. I could hold onto them, buy a couple SF trainee's, and switch to training SF/PF. Get to keep the players I put so much time into training (training, my way), and continue training the rest of my players.

I am in the same boat. I need to train my forwards (and SGs) and my centers are starting to get a bit pricey. I'd like to be able to train the forwards on inside skills without training my centers.

Finding it difficult to see a reason NOT to have the freedom in training we're all suggesting here.

Great post. I'd like to hear anyone (particularly a BB) who can offer some dissent here.

(http://www.buzzerbeater.com/community/fedoverview.aspx?fe...)
Keep your friend`s toast, and your enemy`s toaster.
From: jimrtex

This Post:
00
7590.13 in reply to 7590.3
Date: 12/16/2007 11:01:59 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
44
I absolutely agree with you. I think you should be able to have complete control over the training of your players. If you want to train your C in outside defense you should be able to do so (and thereby make a mistake).

Of course certain skills should be very difficult to acquire for certain type of players (i.e: a C in outside defense), but if a manager still wants to do that well that should be his problem and his right...

This would be the key to implementation.

So let's say that there was a training factor associated with each training type and skill and position. For example for "pressure training", outside defense might be PG 1.0; SG 1.0; SF 0.8; PF 0.6; C 0.5, and the inside defense component might have factors of PG 0.5; SG 0.5; SF 0.7; PF 0.9; C 1.0..

So if you chose pressure and PG, your PGs would get mostly OD and a little bit of ID. If you chose pressure and C. your center would get mostly ID and a little bit of OD. So if you wanted your C to get some OD, then you could train pressure and C; but it would be more efficient for you to play him at PG and train pressure and PG.

If you chose pressure and PG/C, then the training would be cut in half, but the concentration for the positions would be more appropriate for their positions.

This would still work even if the ID component for pressure is less than the OD component.

This Post:
00
7590.14 in reply to 7590.12
Date: 12/24/2007 1:10:52 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
576576

Great post. I'd like to hear anyone (particularly a BB) who can offer some dissent here.


This from BB-Domenico, in the thread that was closed:

we don't think so.
you can't improve in a skill unless you practice it in-game, and (for instance) a center does not dribble that much, nor does a point guard get to defend in the lane often enough.


I get this point, at least for some skills. But, frontcourt players still pass, drive and take jump shots. Just as backcourt players still rebound and attempt to block shots.

TIE/CT are allowed, but is more unrealistic than the training suggestions here. TIE/CT may or may not improve the fun of the game (depends on the user), while I can only see positives to having more flexible training options. Maybe I'm not seeing any secondary negative effects to this which may exist. Anyone out there really disagree with this suggestion?

Edited by brianjames (12/24/2007 1:11:55 AM CET)

Last edited by brian at 12/24/2007 1:11:55 AM

"Well, no ones gonna top that." - http://tinyurl.com/noigttt
This Post:
00
7590.15 in reply to 7590.14
Date: 12/24/2007 1:36:52 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
744744

Great post. I'd like to hear anyone (particularly a BB) who can offer some dissent here.

This from BB-Domenico, in the thread that was closed:

we don't think so.
you can't improve in a skill unless you practice it in-game, and (for instance) a center does not dribble that much, nor does a point guard get to defend in the lane often enough.

This is my reply to Domenico, from the same thread:
Really? Since he doesn't practice passing in-game (and therefore I can't train him in passing), can you explain to me why my PF averages 4.1 assists/game?

And my 3rd string PG can't be trained any further in shot blocking, yet he averages 1.3 blocks per game.

I'm just having problems with your theory, Dom.


And I agree that we may just be seeing the positives here, brian. The positives, however, are so overwhelming that I'm having a very hard time coming up with negatives.

(http://www.buzzerbeater.com/community/fedoverview.aspx?fe...)
Keep your friend`s toast, and your enemy`s toaster.
Advertisement