BuzzerBeater Forums

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

You didn't gave a fair example there, since you can train passing for your whole team atm. Dom didn't say anything about passing in his example. Passing is logically used by every player on court. Same for rebounding.


There quite a few training sorts right now where you can choose to train your whole team, but there are a few where it's not possible yet, like handling, pressure and most of the inside skills. If they will add a train team function there as well the problem is solved.

Edited by PatjeBono (12/26/2007 1:07:38 PM CET)

Last edited by BB-Patrick at 12/26/2007 1:07:38 PM

I think that apart from everything that is said here,
and I agree that it's all positive, and I as well would like to train just the way I want,
the BBs choose not to change it, and might have purposely choosen this system in the first place...

in order to prevent new players from drowning....

BB lets you choose from a variaty of trainingtypes for diffrent positions. I think they did their best to make sure the most important things where included. Yes for several very specific situations you could use other types/positions still, but in the end the trainingtypes they offer, will probably gain the most overall (players train the skills they most use, even if they do use all skills , some are used most, so training those would benefit most in the end).

There is also the scrimages in which you can play specific players at a specific position if you realy want a specific player to train a specific thing.

Last, but not least, I'd like to add that even though you might not want to train your center while training your PF (or any other combination you might think of), but in the end I don't think they are all legendary, so they will get better, even though you find that they are good enough already, they will become better still, that's great isn't it?
(ofcourse I know one would like to put some 18yr old in the trainingspot instead of your 28 yr old center to get the max out of training, but hey... sell the 28yr old and buy a 18 instead if it's realy that bothering)

If 1 player is realy upsetting your trainingsceme that much, I'd sell him and buy an other that fits more into the scheme, rather than trying to have the system changed. After all, it's the same for all. And we get a good variaty of choices for training.
This does not mean I wouldn't like to train exactly what I want and that I also would like that option, still I think I find it better this way, if just only for the fact to prevent that people who don't realy know what they are doing go train skils for players they won't often use.