BuzzerBeater Forums

Well, those centers are nice but not nice enough for NT your right when it comes to normal clubs though. Players with a much higher loan than 40k are only needed on the highest of the highest levels. Thats why I realised that training alot of players is better than training 3 or something (which I did in the past and which will give me a bit of financial problems in the future. If not alot of problems.)

But if he can have just one level less in inside defense, inside shot and rebound and, in the same time, three more levels in jump shot and outside defense, it's much better for me.

This might be true, but I choose to doubt that.
if you raise the outside skills, he will become a PF, which are a little higher in wage then other players.

I also think the salary is overal-skill based (depending on the best position ofcourse some skills will be weighted heavier) and not directly wage related. Because wage is overall skill related, so is the cap indirect related to the wage, but directly to the overall skills...

When you choose a more balanced player, indeed you will be able to train longer. But then you would typically always finish with a SF. If you want a C, I think it is best just to train inside. Hope this makes it a little more clear what I maen...
It all depends on the exact type of player you want

I do, actually when all planned sales will be finished at the end of this season, I will have 3 PFs left, which is more then any other type of player. But when a player is typically predestined to become a dream-center, I wouldn't waste him into a 'just' good PF. ;)
As I am trying to maintain a balanced team, I also value every single position equally. ;)

In the end , the owner of the player will have to decide what he wants to make out of his player...

As I said, I don't think it's the total of skills that slows the training but directly the wage

I'm prety positive this is not true.

Wages are only calculated at the start of the season, and then remain unchanged.

The factor that is used for the potential is calculated at each training, to see if the player already reached his potential. This calculation was said to be similar to the wage calculation, to give users an idea of how it works. The cap most certainly does NOT look at the wage directly, otherwise players won't reach their caps during the season, but only at the start of the season...

Since the calculation works similar, you can also say that when a certain wage is reached, the potential factor will also be reached, so the wage indeed will be a very good indicator, yet it isn't exactly the same. I believe that 2 centers with both a wage of 50k exactly, but 1 having other skills then the other, the 1 could have reached it, while the other hasn't. After 1 more training however chances are very high the other one will have reached it too....

This calculation was said to be similar to the wage calculation, to give users an idea of how it works.

If the calculation is "similar to the wage calculation, I understand that the potential is reached less fast when the skills are "smoother" exactly like the wage increase less fast when the skills are "smoother".

this is correct.

Or another example: SF has a smaller wage than a center and so for me he needs a smaller potential than a center. Even if the totals of skills are the same.

this isn't entirely correct.
Because the SF will be listed as a SF, his skills will be weighted diffrent from a center's skills, and therefor will need the same potential to be able to reach the same level of gameplay with his skillset for his position.

It is a fact it is much harder to train SFs, which has resulted in centers being more skilled in BB then SFs (look at the ratings, centers will have higher gameratings, and that is due to the fact they only focus on the inside, while a SF has his skills spread all over the place.)
My SF which has a wage compareable to my center's last year, still had a lowe rrating, not much, but it was slightly lower. Which indicates that SF's wages are not lower then C's. I rather think that when you want a SF with the same value on the court as a C, you will have to go for a higher paid SF then you need to pay the C, so this would mean the SF will need a higher potential to be able to reach the same level (IF it would be wage-dependant).
Yet if you train both C and SF for an equal amount of time (for instance 6 seasons), the C will always be better then the SF in the end, because you don't need to divide the training over so much skills, which leads to SF's needing a lower potential.
The average of SF needing a higher potential to be able to reach the same level as a C could ever reach if there would be no cap, and the fact SFs just can't reach that far as C's if there would be no cap, balances the whole system a little. (in short, to be able reach the same level, a SF would need higher potential, yet they just don't have enough time to reach that high level, so don't need a cap that is that high)

a SF need a less good potential because his evolution will be slowed by the age before by the potential. Do you agree with this statement?

I think it was in my post as well, so yes, ofcourse. ;)

So for me it's more interesting to train a good PF and buy a great center in this case. Am I still wrong? ;)

I never said you where wrong on that subject.
As I said in previous posts, it depends on personal favour. You'd make him a PF, I'd make him a C.
In my vision he has the PERFECT secondary skills to become a C, where he needs taining on many more skills to become a good PF, so it would take much longer to turn him into a good PF, especially because of his heigt, he will train much slower on for example his OD, which he absolutely does not need extra as a C, but which he certanily does need extra to become a good PF. All the weeks you spend on OD, I can spend on the inside skills, which makes him ready for the big battles much quicker.
These are MY reasons why I would train him in a C, also since if I would make him a PF, and buy a better C still, that better C would cost me to much wage. ;)