BuzzerBeater Forums

how does this correspond with the "strictly follow depth chart" option

It is following your depth chart. It will always be starter, backup then reserve. If your starter will play better than your backup, then the coach is going to keep him on the court regardless of depth chart.

Ever considered starting your weaker player and have your stronger player come off the bench to try help out minutes?

Basically, your complaint is that your player is performing closer to what you're paying him for over an extended period due to his high stamina, and you can't get the minute distribution you'd prefer because you're unwilling/unable to pay a better backup. Nothing's wrong with the system, you're getting more money value out of the strong stamina player, because he's playing closer to his salary over the course of the game than the awful stamina player. The tactical decision to have a really big disparity in your starter-backup talent levels just means that you either have to avoid starting your good player twice or get a massage doc and deal with the poor GS.

This makes sense in theory, until you consider that the player is adversely affected by playing too many minutes when his GS starts to drop. I have a massage doctor, and he doesn't help the cause nearly enough to justify breaking 80 minutes (unwillingly, of course).

There is a problem, in that all coaches are present-biased, and long-term effects are not considered (even if I ask my coach to please consider long-term effects and follow the depth chart).

Last edited by RiseandFire at 4/7/2011 11:08:26 PM

how does this correspond with the "strictly follow depth chart" option

It is following your depth chart. It will always be starter, backup then reserve. If your starter will play better than your backup, then the coach is going to keep him on the court regardless of depth chart.

Ever considered starting your weaker player and have your stronger player come off the bench to try help out minutes?

In this case, it's treating the backup like a reserve. When coaches use set rotations the backup replaces the starter at a certain point in time regardless of skill disparity. That a game which relies on minutes management wouldn't have rotational sub patterns is a ridiculous, yet unfortunately true proposition.

and yeah, I've started my weaker player quite often, because I've had to. but I shouldn't have to...

It's not the coach's job to consider future effects, it's the general manager's (yours). If you want the coach to play the backup, make sure the backup is going to be better than the starter at some point during the game as the starter wears down. If your starter has high stamina, he needs a relatively better backup behind him, because he won't lose effectiveness as fast.

This makes your team perform better as a whole, and you're not wasting the money you pay your starter, because he's not running around wheezing for air after 30 seconds on the court. It also makes your team better able to sustain injuries, as your team won't have a huge drop in talent because the starter is out for three weeks. The trade-off is, of course, that you have a lower financial operating position, or might even need to retool away from the one mega-salary star and McScrubs model in favor of a more balanced team salary position.

Or, you have the option to only get to start your mega-salary star in one game and play him as a backup in the other game, to keep his minutes under 80.

Basically, the choices are already there, they're already pretty varied, and I don't see that there's anything wrong with the system -- you're just complaining because you don't like the outcomes of the choice you've made. What everyone's trying to tell you then is that you need to investigate the other choices the game makes available to you.

tl;dr version: I'm done with this, good luck to your team.

I'm complaining because the choices available are unrealistic and don't let you manage minutes sensibly. It's this simple: If the game is based on long-term minutes management, the fact that subs are always based on fatigue and never on rotations is absurd. In the NBA, stars can go 48 mins and be better than the backup the entire time, but they don't because coaches consider long-term effects. If it's my job as a GM to consider long-term effects, I'd like to hire a coach that uses standard rotational subs!

There are many absurd rules in this game - a real NBA star would never accept a rotation where he would play 48 minutes a game, be a backup in the second game of the week and sit out the third one just to stay in shape - same goes for the training system.

Those are the circumstances we have to accept, as the BBs dont show much enthusiasm when it comes to changing those systems.

The training system makes more logical sense, though - you don't HAVE to play people 48 mins in a particular game, etc. And isn't the purpose of the success forum to discuss the quirks in the game that the BBs don't want to deal with for whatever reason? This thread alone shaped my original complaint into something much better just through discussion. If something doesn't work, we might as well talk about it a lot and maybe the BBs will reconsider...

They've changed things before. Really I'm asking for the option of reliable rotational subs, working independently of high stamina.

Just have a drop-down window asking if you want subs based on "rotation" or "fatigue" - it can't get much more simple than that.

Last edited by RiseandFire at 4/9/2011 4:16:22 PM

The training system makes more logical sense, though - you don't HAVE to play people 48 mins in a particular game, etc. And isn't the purpose of the success forum to discuss the quirks in the game that the BBs don't want to deal with for whatever reason? This thread alone shaped my original complaint into something much better just through discussion. If something doesn't work, we might as well talk about it a lot and maybe the BBs will reconsider...

They've changed things before. Really I'm asking for the option of reliable rotational subs, working independently of high stamina.

Just have a drop-down window asking if you want subs based on "rotation" or "fatigue" - it can't get much more simple than that.

You would then need to add another drop down that asks if you "want to win the game" or "don't give two shits either way." I wouldn't mind the second option for scrimmages.

well, I mean, it's sort of assumed that whatever players are on any basketball court will at least try to win. Unless you're the Cavs in April 2003 or something.

but yeah, I understand any sentiment against adding too many drop-down menus. Maybe revising the current "Substitutions" menu (does anyone really use all the options? I don't think I've ever used anything besides Strictly Follow DC) and giving users a legit "rotational subs" options would be ideal.

Maybe revising the current "Substitutions" menu (does anyone really use all the options? I don't think I've ever used anything besides Strictly Follow DC) and giving users a legit "rotational subs" options would be ideal.

If you value winning more than training for a particular game, Let Coach Decide is your best option. If "Depth Chart til 4th" actually worked, it would be a viable compromise between winning and training, but it doesn't, and hasn't for a long freaking time, so that's irrelevant.