BuzzerBeater Forums

ok cool
so with regards to the difference between Match 1 and match2
there are 2 things that contribute to the annoyance in the above scenario.
garbage time in combination with stamina (i

if garbage time kicks in, the coach will put in players he sees fit to play. this may or may not be the guy whom you have set at PG-PG-PG

Generally its not. why? Stamina. Stamina is the key here. The way Stamina works in the normal game engine is applied during garbage time.
that is (to quote my own definition).

if Player X will perform better than player Y for 1 minute, then substitute him in.

(This is also why during normal games, sometimes you will think 'why did that guy subbed in'.) - So this rule might result in rC being subbed at PG, and your starting C put back into the lineup.
like in the the normal game engine, higher stamina will reduce this amount of substitution.

With regards to garbage time, you not only have the 4 reserve players to whom the substitution engine applies this to, but also the 4 other starters.
So the substitution engine will ask 'Is there anybody on the bench, that will perform better than someone on the court' and make adjustments (swap players around at positions and sub).

The only way to avoid this is by not having anyone on the bench OR your bench players have REALLY bad stamina and your trainee really good stamina (although results may vary) and even then, stamina plays a role.

so thats my explanation of it, i hope it helps.

im not saying its right, but there is logic behind it and whilst it is terribly terribly frustrating at times, its part of the 'magic' that is Buzzerbeater.

I seem to be one of the few managers out here, but I actually like the training system as it is. It is challenging, true. But isn't that the beauty?

If it was easy to manage all these minutes, there would no longer be any skill to training good players. In the current system it is about being smart, making choices and setting priorities. Are you going to train one player? Two? Three? Maybe even more on 2 pos. training? You're the manager, you can decide, but the game decides the conditions. That is the way it should be.

Don't kid yourself though, there are major options available. After all, the problems you face as a manager has the same influence on all the other managers out there. It is all about a competitive advantage in this game, not about the perfect result. So next time you loose a minute or so on one of your trainees, keep in mind that it just happens sometimes, and that your goal should be to loose less minutes than the other training managers, that is what makes a winner. You only have to be better than the rest. Not perfect.

This game is designed to be competitive and the current system of training fits perfectly in it.
I wish everyone good luck with their training! :)

You tell coach pop to hell with his minute plans for tim duncan and he will sincerely tell you to go fck urself. And if coach pop were a member of this BB community, that is essentially what the GE is doing.

The current system provides an absurd rule for us to follow which becomes an unreasonable obstacle that managers like me have to overcome. Surely in real life andrew wiggins don't need 48 minutes to receive 100% training, so why should my jabari parker curb to this absurdity?

If the GE were to be reasonable and give us coaches that actually listen to what the franchise aka me, the manager, want him to do, then the GE wouldn't take the lineup sheet and wipe its ass with it during every garbage time period. In effect, coaches that deny young players minutes for training would get fired. It's hard to do that on BB when every coach obeys to the GE overlord rather than the wishes of his franchise.

The double standard to the disadvantage of managers is disheartening for a game that boasts to give managers control over his team. If the the GE is going to approximate 30,32,36,37,40,47 minutes to what it means to "Strictly Follow the Depth Chart" with no subs intended, then the GE might as well approximate 30,32,36,37,40,47 minutes to what it means to receive full training. Yet, in outright denial of 48 minutes for my joel embiid, it requires 48 minutes for him to train to full effects.

You argue that I can train 2 players/1 position. Yes, I can and that will make things work but I shouldn't HAVE to. It is my privilege (no i didn't check it today) to train 3 players because 3 full games are played this week just as it should be my privilege to train 7 players if 7 full games were played this week.

So the solution are simple, either give a more meaningful training quota that is not so restricting for managers to meet such as 40-48 minutes = 100% training or allow the coach do what I say when I want my elfrid payton play 48 minutes. I shouldn't have to curb to the GE so unreasonably and call it an enjoyment of the game.

andrew wiggins and the vast array of player names i used are just examples. the point wasn't about training curve or anything the point was that no one, not even the hasheem thabeet needs 48 minutes full training.

if it's an impossibility with the game engine to play exactly 48 minutes then I concede, but there's no reason that things can't be changed regarding what equates to full training

Last edited by Histamine at 5/17/2015 5:02:58 PM

It's not a decision and choice that any manager should have to make because the decision is hindered by an unreasonable aspect of the game.

As to why it's unreasonable, I think I really explained it.

... an advantage that I currently have over these lesser managers ...

When someone gets accustomed to the illogical aspects of this game, and has learned to work around them, this sort of attitude is sure to develop. The illogical aspects become institutionalized, and the game stagnates.

New managers rebel not because experienced managers are playing the game better; that is to be expected at first. New managers rebel at the illogic of it.

If it was easy to manage all these minutes, there would no longer be any skill to training good players.

Here is the other argument that is used to defend the illogical because it is the status quo. Of course, it is a specious argument. There is nothing to prevent logical training programming from being challenging.

Last edited by Mike Franks at 5/18/2015 12:45:18 AM

Whilst this is merit in having a new set of eyes look upon problems, which is extremely valuable and I see this every day in my work - a LOT of the time there are valid reasons why some things exist. An understanding and appreciation of the problem and how it works and why it works, is more important that a new set of eyes.

So whilst there is merit in your statement, it doesn't fly with me.

The attitude that I took when I was a new manager, was to embrace the game as it was, and it try and understand it... why? Why is it so hard to do training? ohhhh I get it now, I have to do blah blah blah and blah.... ahhh that makes sense.... hmmm I didn't get 48 mins? why? hmmm... lets read some forums, oh garbage time, hmmm, lets see if there is a way around that... hmmmm. could be tricky, etc etc etc.

you get my point though?

Sometimes when someone says "This is wrong fix it" it is the same as someone coming in saying "This is too hard I don't want to spend the time learning it and understand it, therefore there must be something wrong, fix it"