BuzzerBeater Forums

what about the 3 games i linked where i only had 9 dressed, that was just back luck once a week for 3 straight weeks?

No bad luck in this at all.

Just bad management to be too stubborn and obstinate to not listen to the advise of only suiting up 7 players.



Last edited by Sid Vicious at 8/3/2014 6:59:13 AM

this thread was the first i've ever read about suggesting to suit up only 7. Everything else has always suggested dressing 9, a starter and back up for each position except the one your training. Also that seem like really bad coding if you need to only dress 7 to ensure that your player gets full training. Its unbelievably unrealistic, no basketball team in the world suits 7 players. It a major determent when you trying to be competitive. It just don'r not make any sense to me for a game to tie everything important to training and then force you to be very suboptimal lineup and unrealistic lineups to ensure that the person you want actually gets the training.

Its unbelievably unrealistic, no basketball team in the world suits 7 players

Try coaching under age basketball, more often than not you are happy if 7 players turn up.

It just don'r not make any sense to me for a game to tie everything important to training and then force you to be very suboptimal lineup and unrealistic lineups to ensure that the person you want actually gets the training.

Good Managers find a way, others just complain

Look at it this way. If you want 100% guarantee that your trainee plays 48 minutes if he's not injured or fouled out, dress 5 players. That's your 100% guarantee (barring the injury/foulout).

Then you have a choice to be more competitive, there's way to increase your competitive at a very small chance your player won't get 48 minutes. You could dress 7 players, making sure that the 2 extra players are both reserve and backup for 2 positions each. Another step would be 9 players, making sure that every extra player is reserve and backup for a non-training position. This way you'll almost always get 48 minutes, there's just a very small chance you don't get it. Most of the times it goes right, just not always. That might be explained due to stamina or game pace, or out of position training, or a combination of all these reasons.

You know your options, we've explained how it works. It's up to you to make the decision out of these options and live with it. Make the most of it. Know you've done your best and accept that.

It does not work in blowouts
Dress 9 all the time as you wrote
44-45-46 minutes guaranteed

what about the 3 games i linked where i only had 9 dressed, that was just back luck once a week for 3 straight weeks?

If you have a huge blowout and the trainee is in a position where he's extremely underskilled compared to the alternatives, it's quite possible to lose a couple of minutes here or there. That's what happened in two of those games you reference. The other game against the Snackers, Parot fouled out and so obviously the coach was required to substitute him.

In terms of why 48 minutes are not guaranteed, it's simply always been that way. The BBs in the past have consistently stated that the engine was not designed to guarantee a player 48 minutes, though the community has sort of come up with the workarounds to give the best case possible (I would, ideally, use 8 players instead of 9 to help counter the possibility of garbage time being invoked while a different starter was on the FT line). In the long run, though, missing a minute or two here or there is inconsequential compared to time lost to injuries, and obsessing over every last minute is counterproductive (and this is coming from someone who has done that as well).

There have been several different suggestions about substitution patterns since as long as I've been in BB and I'm sure that it goes further back than that, even. My personal windmill was that I hated that if I had two high stamina players at the same position of roughly equal quality, there would always be a 40+ minute split for the starter and less than 8 for the backup, with no way to force a rotation even in the 32-16 range, let alone more balanced than that. I feel your pain here. It's just one of the things that you just learn to accept as BB being what BB is, and doing your best to work around that.

you said losing a minute here any there was not a big deal right. Well the reason i'm worried about it is from reading that if your trainee gets 48 minutes but not 48+ he gets about 10% less training. So that sounds rather significant to me, is that in fact correct? Based on that when my guys get 44-47 minutes they have to be losing like 15%+ of that weeks training and thats just pretty frustrating.

im suggesting that stamina is an issue in blowouts.

trainee has low stamine = subbed out.

trainee has better stamina than other options, he stays in.

Thats just my casual observations. There is logic in that. Its not like, BB have hard-coded "Sub the guy set at Starter/reserve/backup" because that makes no sense.

But yes, in garbage games, 9 players is hard to manage. I honestly haven't had a lot of garbage games of late.

1. Don't put 10th player.

2. Have two important trainees, and whatever third one, so you can sacrifice his minutes if one of the two important ones get subbed out.

yes this is true, but im not sure how it relates to subbing?

If at all?

I remember i had a player who had Prolific stamina, or something around that. and basically, if i set him as Starter, and NOT backup/reserve - he still played 48 mins.

Thats the game engine deciding that he is better off remaining in the game compared to the subs.
That problem has always been the case, the new change is makign it such that he doesn't get penalised in his game shape.

Now how does this relate to subbing in garbage time? not sure. A higher stamina player will still get preference to play minutes, so im assuming in the situation of garbage time the game engine does the following.

- Player set at Starter has Stamina of X. Does any other player on the team have higher stamina? Yes? Sub that player in.

So thats nothing new. I dont think the recent change will affect this process.