BuzzerBeater Forums

My opinion is that we should be able to set a basic suggestion for each position, something like:
Keep starter in
Rotate often
Play to win

The keep starter in option isn't really necessary in the current environment since you can force that with appropriate lineup decisions. The play to win would probably mirror what we have now. But the rotate often option would be nice when you have two similar guys who you want to both get quality minutes, which is difficult to happen right now if they both have high stamina.

The actual pattern sucks, because it doesn't work. There's only one that works and it doesn't always work (e.g. injuries, garbage time, benched player with no spot assigned, and so on...)

It is not exact, but close to that.

One that will use one of all the others has chance to see things he did not expect to.

This is an annoying bug.

On the other hand, MOST of the time, those patterns do work.
I've happened to suffer from one time that it did not.
Luckily, it had not done much damage for the season, but it could have...

It is not exact, but close to that.

One that will use one of all the others has chance to see things he did not expect to.

This is an annoying bug.

On the other hand, MOST of the time, those patterns do work.
I've happened to suffer from one time that it did not.
Luckily, it had not done much damage for the season, but it could have...

As I said, the pattern works only under some conditions. Not going through injuries or not going in garbage is one of the conditions.
As we speak, I just lost a game were my PG and SG got injuried and they got substituted not by the guard, not by the SF... by the PF and the C.

It is not exact, but close to... what?

Never seen such a stupid system.

I'm not saying that when it does not work, it works close enough, but that usually this other strategies work.

As said, I've also suffered from something close to what you had... Only that it had happened in a game that did not count to much for me.

Affecting Rotation levels would help. Even if each position had a rotation level of low/medium/high it could help with a lot of issues. Currently it is difficult to train players while still getting my star players at other positions 2 starts a week. In order to get full 1 position training I have to set up my lineup in such a way that my star PF kept getting over 40 minutes a game and starting him twice would kill his GS.

I just lost a game were my PG and SG got injuried and they got substituted not by the guard, not by the SF... by the PF and the C.

Now this is an interesting comment, but my question is - who did you have set as the reserves for each position?
In my games, if i don't have a scrub set as a backup, i will set them according to their position appropriateness.
That is, i set my backup SF as the SG reserve and my backup PF as my reserve C and so forth.

ive had it where my starting PG gets injured, and because i play 'strictly follow depth chart', he shuffles the bench according the backups and reserves that ive allocated.

Now in saying all this, ive usually dressed 11 or 12 players, so im able to set these reserve positions with scrubs, but if you only dress 8 or 9 players in your lineup, this tactic is hard to set.

The other point is that sometimes i know the coach will set a SG at PF, when there are few minutes left, to shoot 3's, or he might set a C at SG because you need the rebound, or something like that. So sometimes that does happen and you will end up with out of position players.
I guess what im saying is that, in my experiences, strictly follow depth chart and play 11+ players, and i cant say ive really noticed the issues you have mentioned.

I guess what im saying is that, in my experiences, strictly follow depth chart and play 11+ players, and i cant say ive really noticed the issues you have mentioned.

I got an answer from a BB on something (On a bug thread I've opened) related to the above - apparently there is a bug on the other tactics, and only the "Strictly..." one works as expected.
That may be part of the reason.

As in a Bug bug!?! like a properly defined IT coded incorrectly and stuffed up bug?

Or a Pini-definition bug?

:)))))))))