BuzzerBeater Forums

Well I'd pick adblock, but I can't install anything on my office computer.

Yeah I considered that option, but I can easily afford the supporter package and I would feel a bit uncomfortable talking about the game as a whole and changes, while actually reducing a source of income (however small) for the game.

I do understand people who can't afford it or who don't think it's worth it. For me it was totally worth it, as my girlfriend was beginning to be suspicious of the random grandma sex advertising, eh (:|

Last edited by Lemonshine at 7/9/2015 4:47:06 AM

As I said to Sensiman I confused some of your posts. That's obviously my fault.

Thing is, there's a skill division employed here that sees inside and outside separated. Building off of this, and off of newly introduced one position training options, I'd say no penalty for inside skills should occur for PF position, and likewise no penalty for one pos training for PG/SG where there is a penalty now. Two position regimens stay the same. Obviously, SF is a soft spot. I'd argue for a 90% effectiveness of all one position training schemes irrespective of the inside/outside.

Some stuff makes no sense after the change. For example, someone in the help threads asked what is 1v1 for SG/SF modelled after. It not clear whether it would be 90% of PG/SG or 90% SF/PF, but even then it's kind of obvious that a 90% for SG/SF does not make much sense since you can train at 100% at either SG or SF positions.

Your idea seems to be slightly less radical than removing positional requirements altogether. Marin has already increased the percentages in the past, maybe he'll do some more. I think it's a valid proposal and I'm pretty sure that people who want to raise those percentages to 100% across the board (effectively removing the out of position requirement) would like that.

At the same time I also agree with those who say that the training page currently is not very clear and probably daunting for someone approaching training for the first time. If the long term plan is rewarding people who train, as it has been stated several times, then at the very least the training page could do with some reshaping or a proper thorough guide so that anyone approaching it can understand it.

Last edited by Lemonshine at 7/9/2015 11:32:52 AM

This is my proposal to all the people who like the current easy system: make it so that 100% training is only awarded to players who play 36+ at one position and 36+ at another position.

Yeah, make it more illogical than ever before! Whoopdedoo! Because playing out of position is such a good idea, eh?

I cared enough to contact Mike Franks who's got some radical ideas. No answer was given.

I'm still working on it, but my time and Internet access are rather limited with the job I have now.

BTW, I don't think it is "radical" to propose making training logical while still retaining or even increasing the challenge. I also don't think it is "radical" to think the centerpiece of a basketball sim should be winning basketball games, not training for training's sake.

Also:

Pops occur without any planning by the general manager.

You said that, not me. No need to misrepresent anything I said.

Last edited by Mike Franks at 7/10/2015 2:03:33 AM

It was ironic. The reasoning being: if people like challenges then let's make it even more challenging...

It was ironic. The reasoning being: if people like challenges then let's make it even more challenging...

Yes, I got it.

But let's always remember that they can get rid of the totally illogical shiite and still make it as challenging or more challenging than ever. Illogical does not equate to challenging, it just equates to illogical. Only the guys who are currently taking advantage of the illogical stuff that they have learned how to do are against that. It seems to me that that is a selfish point of view, not considering what is good for the game. Illogical isn't good for the game.