BuzzerBeater Forums

You can assign well sub players and still there is nothing guaranteed.
(http://www.buzzerbeater.com/match/26583723/reportmatch.as...)
This substitution (Portocarrero for Capela on PG) is one of most ridiculous I have ever seen on BB. Does it have any sense to boost lineup at 1:07 before the end while leading 99-32?
My suggestions are:
Suggestion 1)
"Strictly follow depth chart" should be really strictly even in last 2 minutes or at least should be strictly in last 2 minutes if there is 20+(?) points difference. In close games I have nothing against this non-wanted substitutions.
Suggestion 2)
I can imagine split this option to two:
A) "Strictly follow depth chart" - strictly for whole 48 minutes
B) "Strictly follow depth chart (except for last 2 minutes)" - behaviour as present option
I can imagine option A) can cause drop in Fan Survey if it's used and team loses the close game.

I think even without these substitution situations training would be very challanging. Because training for example passing for PF/C, inside def. for PG/SG etc. is still very challanging even if you swap positions in defence.

As BB's said, they never intended anyone to play just one guy at one spot the whole game (48 mins). So going for one position training with 3 players should be a risk. Injurys, fouling outs and odd substitutions. Working as intended.
Like I said the only thing we are actually missing is the play for +/- increase. Basically playing for the biggest lead and ignoring the blowout rule.

If you compare that to the challenging effect of the training in other position than is suitable for the player, there is some kind of logic that it is necessary in order to make multiskill players valuable and so on. But once you have to fight with any wicked rules which makes your coach to substitute during bigger win and so on, it makes things really bizare and it just sucks.

Last edited by aigidios at 10/18/2010 12:31:12 PM

I agree, that ignoring blowout rule should be usefull in same cases.

Back to my suggestion. This is suggestion forum, not bug forum. I know what in past BB's said but still I insist on my suggestion. There is already space for changing their mind. It's really totally unlogical that someone is penalized for huge lead. Because in game I mentioned if I was only 10 points ahead, Capela would have played 48, because Portocarrero would have been on SG and there wouldn't have been anyone on the bench who would have been selected on PG instead of Capela by coach.

As BB's said, they never intended anyone to play just one guy at one spot the whole game (48 mins). So going for one position training with 3 players should be a risk. Injurys, fouling outs and odd substitutions. Working as intended.

If I play a scrimmage and I win by a lot I can never be sure what kind of minutes my players will get. If I lose it or play a very close game the minutes will be more as planned. It's really not logical and probably not intended, but something that has just happened.

There is a BB quote about "not intended one player to play the whole game"?

That's strange, I'm always pretty sure what minutes my players get in scrimmages. You just need to choose your opponents better. Are you saying it's hard to get 48 minutes in a scrimmage??? I completely disagree.
Yes BB's have quoted that, most recent one was the walkover thread. Why do you get 43 minutes when you assign Starter-Sub-Reserve in a walkover? There's your answer.

That's strange, I'm always pretty sure what minutes my players get in scrimmages. You just need to choose your opponents better.

Your opponent in scrimmage shouldn't really have that big of an effect to the minute management I believe.

Are you saying it's hard to get 48 minutes in a scrimmage??? I completely disagree.

Depends what kind of minutes you want to your other players.. Because I think there are too many "quirks" in the system - with 5 players it's easy but with more players you need to assign a role to them and you should try not to blowout and so on. The system really doesn't work the way I would intuitively expect it to, and that's the (little) problem here.


You said earlier that training shouldn't be easy as people want to play challenging games. Well, that's not really an argument to either direction. Others like more challenge, others like different challenge. Now if they for example made enthusiasm hidden or game shape hidden the game would be more challengin to play well, but I guess (almost) no-one would really like that.

Your opponent is a big factor. Does he have many aggressive players on the roster (high fouls per game). Can you win him with blowout. Starter-Sub and different player in Reserve nets you ~36/12. Pretty easy to get 48 mins for trainees.
If you can assign minutes, it's not hard at all to get full minutes for 1 pos training for 3 players. It's a childrens game that way. Easy training with no tradeoff. If the game is too easy anyone can win. If you make the game more challenging the best managers will win. This is how it should be.

Your opponent is a big factor.

And I was arguing that it probably shouldn't be that big.

If you can assign minutes, it's not hard at all to get full minutes for 1 pos training for 3 players.

Yep, I should be able to do that this week if I'm not unlucky. But that is only after having learnt a couple things about the system so, again, I think the system could use a bit more logic.

If the game is too easy anyone can win. If you make the game more challenging the best managers will win. This is how it should be.

Naturally. But imo the challenge shouldn't be about "which opponent to play scrimmage against" or "I can't put that many players on roster if I want my PG surely to get 48 min" but instead I think the challenge should be about "what kind of players I want", "what's my training plan for next season" or "is it more important to play him 80+ minutes this week than the better game shape next week"...

Comon are you serious. You just need to choose either you take an opponent you blowout or you choose an opponent to whome you lose big. Avoid close games.
Training should be hard, choosing players should be hard, deciding if you can start your star player in 3 important games this week -> thus sacrificing his GS should be hard. No guts no glory. If you want to risk pushing 3 player single position training, why complain if you fail. There has to be a tradeoff.

Can someone tell me why it should be hard to get as many minutes to your players as you want?

Because the training system is tied to weekly minutes played in a certain position. IMO it's an obvious game design choice that I find pretty difficult to argue. If one wants to change this, there need to be changes to the training system. These would not necessarily need to be major changes, though. For example a new tuning of the "how much training one gets for fewer than 48 weekly minutes" parameter just might be sufficient. One key point of course is that most people want to control the minutes to get best possible training. Remove (most of) that incentive and they are less likely to want extreme minutes anyway. Then give them that option.

IMO game design fails when people want to choose the extreme option (such as playing each guy 48 minutes a game in training position) and are rewarded for doing that. If that's easy and if that's a winning strategy at some level, is there anything fun and challenging in this aspect of the game anymore? Wouldn't the game be better off by removing that aspect and thus making it more simple and accessible? In this sense, the current system is actually pretty well balanced. Moreover, I think it's too easy to get 48 minutes and teams that field only 5 players are not punished enough. But that's just an opinion.