BuzzerBeater Forums

I think there is something wrong with the percentages. For example three position training for pressure (sg/sf/pf) and two position training (sg/sf) and one position (sg) is all at 80 percent. Should the three position and two position be training be slower than the one position training? or am just not looking at it the right way?

Training at Sf is at 70 percent for pressure also much slower than two and three position training.

Last edited by Lolo Smithz at 10/22/2014 10:12:20 PM

I think there is something wrong with the percentages. For example three position training for pressure (sg/sf/pf) and two position training (sg/sf) and one position (sg) is all at 80 percent. Should the three position and two position be training be slower than the one position training? or am just not looking at it the right way?

Training at Sf is at 70 percent for pressure also much slower than two and three position training.

No, there's no problem. Single position training at SF is 70% as fast as single position training at PG. Three position SG/SF/PF is 80% as fast as three position PG/SG/SF. All of the other factors that affect training speed (age, elastic effect, trainer level, minutes, etc) will still apply; the 80/70/60/50 is simply an additional "out of position" modifier.

Thanks for the explanation I was reading it the wrong way. Much appreciated.

I would say, that the new feature would be more balanced with the previous system if the decrease of training speed was a bit lower. For example:

PA:
PG - 100%
SG - 90%
SF - 80%
PF - 70%
C - 60%

As it was said before - training PA at C position is now close in terms of effectiveness to training whole team but giving more freedom to the manager. As if you are training 3 guys at C position you have to give them 48 minutes a game - that reduces chances of wining the game (stamina) not to mention fouling out. Training same 3 players PA in a regime for whole team you can play them at PF/C positions, use substitutions and not worry about fouling out for the gain of something like 5%-10% of effectiveness. If it was 60% of normal one position training speed than the gap rises to 15%-20% which makes it worth taking into consideration.

At the moment I would say that hardcore trainers will still train PA at PG position for big man and people who are thinking about winning games rather that training optimisation will go for game shape or training PA for whole team - making new feature rarely used.

Yeah I think the penalty is too big, centers (tall players) are already training slower in guard skills because of the height, why punish them twice this way? I'd say something like a 5% decrease per position would be better.

I also like the new training regimen like outlet passing, seems realistic and balanced. Another idea could be to have tall players slowcap faster at guard skills while training at the same speed. This way you can still make them more balanced quickly without them getting very strong at it, seems realistic and balanced too.

I agree with you.

if i train a C in OD or a PG in IS (examples) they suffer the height effect, if i want to train them in the right position i've to pay a lot (40/50% more) just to be competitive in normal gamea... a slighter balance probably meanings easy way to train Forwards, for sure, but IMO a 75% effect not linked to "far position respect the standard" can be the best solution.

This new update in training are very confusing !!!
If you put procentage on new types of training than make it right, and clear to all.
Example:
pressing :
1. position P (should be basic fastest training =100%)
2. B (80%)
3. SF(70%)
4. PF (60%)
5. C (50%)
6. P/B (???) - is it 50% or 75 % or more or less from basic training on position P ??? What is faster to train -pressing on position C (50%) or pressing for P/B ?
If you want to make changes than explain them clear to all players-this procentage you wrote in training updates means nothing this way !

What about training positions that train other things in the same category?

For example DRIVING for Guards trains JS/HA/DR and for Forwards trains JS/HA/DR and IS. What happens now?

I think it will help...one issue I see though, for example with SF pressure training. Which will be better SF pressure or3 position pressure?

@trainerman: SF pressure, of course. 70% of 1 position pressure training effectiveness is still higher than 100% of the old 3 position training.

I would say, that the new feature would be more balanced with the previous system if the decrease of training speed was a bit lower. ... At the moment I would say that hardcore trainers will still train PA at PG position for big man and people who are thinking about winning games rather that training optimisation will go for game shape or training PA for whole team - making new feature rarely used.

@picia: The decrease in effectiveness needs to be felt. I'm not saying these numbers are set in stone, but for the first iteration of a feature, we'd rather stay on the conservative side. And I disagree with your prognosis - I think many managers will use it.

Yeah I think the penalty is too big, centers (tall players) are already training slower in guard skills because of the height, why punish them twice this way? I'd say something like a 5% decrease per position would be better.

@Jeründerbar: In basketball terms, think of it as a mindset issue; centers just aren't as adept at training playmaking routines as playmakers. It doesn't come naturally to them as it does to the point guards. And now I'm sorry we didn't include a similar explanation in the news post

This new update in training are very confusing !!!
If you put procentage on new types of training than make it right, and clear to all.

@Ogi: We didn't think we need to put the 100% number beside the old training types, but if other users think it's necessary, it's not hard to do. Also, if you're confused, ask, that's why we're here.

What about training positions that train other things in the same category?
For example DRIVING for Guards trains JS/HA/DR and for Forwards trains JS/HA/DR and IS. What happens now?

@Villagkouras: We just made the choice based on common sense. I guess we can't disclose everything, right? It would take the training analisys fun out of it.

The decrease in effectiveness needs to be felt. I'm not saying these numbers are set in stone, but for the first iteration of a feature, we'd rather stay on the conservative side.

In basketball terms, think of it as a mindset issue; centers just aren't as adept at training playmaking routines as playmakers. It doesn't come naturally to them as it does to the point guards. And now I'm sorry we didn't include a similar explanation in the news post

Thank you for your time replying, and don't get me wrong I think it's a good update; extra options are always welcome. I'm glad to see that the numbers aren't set in stone, because as I said I think it's a bit harsh. I'm curious to see how it develops though!