BuzzerBeater Forums

In spanish we traslated it as "Es importante saber que el desarrollo de los jugadores (entreno) está asociado a la posición en que juegan en ataque, sin importar qué habilidad se esté trabajando.

So it means: "It is important to know that the development of the players (training) is linked to what position they play on offense, no matter what skill they are working on".

If I wanted to be more explicit, I would have even use "no matter what skill they are training".

I think a wonderful new feature has been implemented and everyone is focusing on the wording not the actual feature. Its like the kid on Christmas who's more interested in the box than the toy.

BB's I think it was mentioned above, but I didn't see an answer. How will this effect rebounding match-ups? In my head it makes sense that O Rebounds would be at the offensive position and defensive would be at the position we set for them to cover.

Also how will this effect the player ratings?

Its like the kid on Christmas who's more interested in the box than the toy.

But unlike on Christmas, the box matters as well; however cool the toy is.

Thanks a lot.

We waited such stuff for a long time

On BB-France, there is one thing we are discussing about this measure :
Would it be possible in the future that the measure might be efficient for substitutes too ?
(I mean to choose a defensive position for my PG, C or whatever N°1 and another one for my N°2)

I mean if I want to train a C like a PG or whatever, that's great.
But perhaps, during an important match, without thinking about formation, I would like to use one kind of defensive position for my player N°1, but not for my substitute because they have not the same kind of skills.

Perhaps am I anticipating far too much, but i wonder if this measure would help training multiskills players (yes, it's the big point here, and that's great), but would also prevent from using 2 players different at the same offensive position during an important match, when used.

Ok, that's not a big problem somehow since, if this happens, well, I would not modifiy the defensive position.
But if it could be improved by permitting the same kind of decision for substitutes, it would improve even more the measure

Anyway, thanks again for your efforts ;)

Last edited by Dunker Joe at 11/10/2009 8:51:16 AM

On BB-France, there is one thing we are discussing about this measure :
Would it be possible in the future that the measure might be efficient for substitutes too ?
(I mean to choose a defensive position for my PG, C or whatever N°1 and another one for my N°2)

I think that would be hard to introduce. What happens when your N°2 guy is about to enter the floor to guard the PG the starting C is already guarding? Then you need to change all five players at the same time.

okay, in that news post we didn't just say "sometime in the future", we actually said SPECIFICALLY season 10, and then in the forums we clarified that it would happen at the allstar break.

We should have clarified this in the start of the season 10 news post, we did say so in the forums.

And how can I find older news posts? Last one (on my list) is from 2009-07-24.

I think it is highly unlikely if not for something else then for just because Let coach decide with blank slots is a legitimete lineup.

correct, it actually becomes quite difficult to figure out what lineup to actually put on the floor in this case because you need to make sure you have every offensive AND defensive position covered. It makes it easier when you know that as long as you fill all 5 offensive spots you are gonna have all 5 defensive spots covered. I think if you write down some more complicated contraints and think about all the various possibilities that the coach would face while trying to make a substitution you can appreciate the problem.

rebounding will work as you would expect it to, you box out the guy who you were defending. So if you swap for the purposes of defense, you are also swapping for the purposes of rebounding.

I don't know what you mean by the player ratings, do you mean the matchup ratings? the matchup ratings are a measure of offensive efficiency and will continue to be calculated in exactly the same way. Obviously how efficent you are is a function of who is guarding you, so in that way they are affected by defensive swaps i suppose.

Perhaps he meant rating which is in last column of player statistics.

I think that in cases where their is slang that doesn't translate, or language which is clear in english but not when translated literarily the LAs should feel free to change the wording to make it clear in their own language. We do however try to write the news posts with a particular style that gives the game a sort of quirky flare.. we think at least... we understand that quirky flare doesn't translate well in some cases. If that flare can be translating without obscuring the meaning then we would prefer that.

Basically, there are two possibilities, that you don't know what we meant in English and so don't know how to translate it clearly, or you are having trouble translating what we said literally because it becomes unclear after you do so.

In case 1) you should come to us to understand what we meant better, and perhaps if our English is actually unclear we should change it

In case 2) you should feel free to change the wording to make the meaning clear, if you can find alternative styling to make the news post not read blandly, that would be good too. I mean we could have written.
"training minutes will be linked to the offensive position played, irrespective of what skill is being trained. If your PG plays the whole week defensively at center, but offensively at point guard and you train rebounding for centers, your point guard will not get any rebounding training."

perhaps an example would have made it clearer in this case, but it makes the whole thing sound very technical and boring.

I'm sure for some people they would prefer technical and boring, but we feel differently about the way we want to present buzzerbeater aesthetically to the world.
EDITED FOR MIXING UP C AND PG)



Last edited by BB-Forrest at 11/10/2009 1:04:39 PM