BuzzerBeater Forums

For me, that is the biggest flaw in this game, and it constantly leads to frustration. I think it would make this game a lot more entertaining, if the substitution patterns do reflect more precisely what you have done beforehand with your lineup.

Minute management is very important in this game for various reasons:
1. The shape of the players is directly linked to the minutes they have played the training week before.
2. More minutes within a game than you have planned can lead to unexpected preformance drops due to the stamina effect.
3. Training is as well linked to the minutes played on a training position.

My last cup game (71918296) is a good example for how many flaws there are. My starting C was set as starter, 1st and 2nd reserve. I´ve set "Strictly follow depth chart", I took 9 players to the game and all were set to a certain position. Within the fourth quarter, my coach decided to substitute my C and replace him with my planned reserve SG, for 9 minutes. Therefore, my starting SG had to continue playing.
The outcome: My starting SG played more minutes than planned, my starting C only played 39 minutes, which lead to a great loss of training (about 35% instead of 100%).
I don´t understand this. Why do we have the option "Strictly follow depth chart", but the coach doesn´t care at all?

The BB´s always state (this issue gets mentioned every now and then), that there is no intention to get 48 minutes training by playing one full game.
But it´s not only the training that is directly linked to the minute management. It can ruin all the planning for the player´s performances. These kind of random lineup switches can lead to bad shape of NT players, leading to ...

Too many things are linked to a proper minute management. So things like that shouldn´t happen.

I would really love to have more options when setting a lineup (which would as well lead to far more realism within the game):
For a starting player I have now the option between ~ 48 minutes (starter, both reserves same player AAA), ~ 46 minutes (A, A, and ~ 36 minutes (A, B, B or A, B, A. doesn´t make a lot of difference).
I´d like to have more options, like:
- split the minutes evenly between two players, or even three players.
- let player A start, but give him less minutes than player B.
- customize the substitutions for the garbage time.
- customize the substitutions for the crunch time.

The crunch time matter: It happens quite often that all your subs get in at the start of the overtime. That often leads to an assured loss of the game. First, this behaviour is ridiculously unrealistic and shouldn´t happen. Second, substitutions only happen after the game is stopped, not after missed or made shots. Due to that fact, the game is out of reach if you are unlucky that no foul happens etc. That shouldn´t happen. An easy solution for that: a forced timeout should stop the game to allow substitutions.

Ok, a lot of points, but all related to one topic.

Having to manage minutes is one of the keys to being successful. Being successful must be challenging. Therefore, I believe it should remain how it is.

Yes, minute management should be challenging. But that´s not what I was writing about.

It´s a challenge, because you can´t field your best players 3 times a week and still have good game shape. So minute management is a key to success. I agree with that, and don´t want to change it.

Though my thoughts go in a different direction, and maybe you should check this as well. (258551.1).
Especially in higher leagues, training players and being successful at the same time is nearly impossible. So a very simple and promising strategy is: buying 5-8 old guys, buy a massage doc, train game shape and let those old guys play. With "Let coach decide" and blank lineup it´s even easier. You have to do ... close to nothing. You don´t have to do any management.

If BBs intention is to keep that strategy the most successful, they don´t need to change anything. My hope is that my suggestions would make it a little easier and a little more attractive to train players.
I try to develop home grown players, try to build a SF and try to be competitive. And I think my suggestions would enable some more managers to compete against teams that are not training players at all.

I have not asked to remove the minutes restrictions, I just ask for some more options, a little more realism and a little less bugs, when setting my lineup.

I'll agree that the old players strategy is too easy, and as someone who finds training to be one of the best parts of the game, I know the difficulties of get 3 guys 48 minutes every week. But to me, the challenge of training is what makes it most rewarding. I guess I think that if something should be done, it's should be removal of GS training, although I do like the idea of being able to manage garbage time. In real life, the coach decides when to put in the subs, but it seems sort of random in Buzzerbeater.

Last edited by Nick22 at 5/3/2014 11:07:42 AM

I totally agree regarding OT. It should be like the beginning of a new quarter and all your starters should be put in the game.

thunder dan's suggestions are what i have been suggesting in another thread, the BBs should be able to give us more realistic options like in substitution patterns. i even suggested that managers should be able to make at least 1 LIVE substitution/ strategy change DURING the game so as to adjust to what is happening on court.

anyway i hope that the BBs introduce improvement on this aspect of the game.

i agree with OP, i think you should be able to allocate minutes to the players you want, im training the same 3 players no mater what why cant i set them to have 16min each game at PG or C?

Perpete, what is your opinion on the matter of minutes management? Do you think it works as desired, or do you think it might need to change?

I would really like to have a BB comment on that topic. I can´t imagine that they are content with the current situation.