BuzzerBeater Forums

The 5-6 player rotation stradegy is primarily an economic issue. Tampering with stamina/injury is not the best solution. Fixing salary inflation, so teams can afford to pay more than 5-6 players, and implementing an 8-man lineup rule are better solutions.

This.

A million times this.

Please listen to this paragraph.

I'm wondering if we lower player's salary or give more money to teams, will it really motivate them to buy better backups or will they just use 5 players with higher salary than before with still bad backups.

If you don't need to use $70k backups because they will not play, there is no reason to buy them and you can use that money to pay even more your starters.

There has to be a reason within one game to have subs playing to get people to have better/more expensive subs.

That's a good point that certainly needs to be discussed.

I personally believe that any team that is forced to play a scrub will be at a major disadvantage and that's the most important aspect that would help teams that DO choose to play quality backups. Especially with tactics like: 'patient,' which creates mismatch opportunities by isolating terrible defenders; that would create nightmare mismatches that could very will lead to a certain loss for any team playing scrubs, let alone a B3 team.

Again . . . how deep a team is, in terms of depth and quality for players 1-8, will heavily depend on the salary cap or the cost of player salaries. If the current salary inflation stands, it might be too difficult to pay three solid bench players, and teams might instead choose to play scrubs, but again, I'd be very optimistic about the advantage I would gain if I were to play a B3 team that chooses to dress even one scrub.

When I was competing in the B3 back in season 33-35, I had three very good depth players under 60K that I trained myself (all forwards) and my team was very deep and formidable. It was easier to keep salaries low back then compared to today, where due to the current economic situation, I was forced to play a 6-man rotation while competing in the B3 (which I hated doing).

With the salary inflation, those same trainees that I mentioned above went from 50K to 100K, and that was back in s35. Now, with the new training advancements, players salaries have grown significantly higher making it difficult more managers to pay for weekly salary expenses, or have a deep rotation with solid depth.

But, anyways, I believe this 8-man rotation talk is a step in the right direction regardless of the salary inflation crisis (which I believe needs to be adjusted and balanced by reflecting a players' TSP).

Just increase stamina impact indeed : if it's a better strategy to have a 8-9 men rotation (rather than a 5-6 one), people will do that. It applies to any money level.

To me this is the most important point.

If you can have a better team with an 8-9 man rotation than a 5-6 man rotation for equal or less total salary then managers would do it.

In my opinion the substitution patterns and stamina impact should be adjusted in the GE to reach this goal.

Any adjustments to salaries, tv contracts, staff, can and (should be) looked at after the core problem is resolved.

I agree with you 100 percent.

But if the stamina impact make a player irrelevant after 35 minutes (just a number) we need to manage very precisely the substitution patterns by saying this player should play X minutes as a starter this one X as a backup. Otherwise it will be very hard to manage trainees minutes since we will not be able to play them the whole game.

And when I say trainees I mean all of them not only 18 - 19 - 20 years old because we still train after that.

So for me the first thing to do is to fix/change the substitution patterns.

And as a developer even without knowing the code I think it will be the most trickier.

Other Games are using Energy/Fatigue System probably BB can derive the system to fit it to the BBM and BBB Tournaments... It is a a fixed Daily Energy Recovery for every player

Just for example... please feel free to balance the figures... wherever you see fit
Players Max ENergy can be 100 and Minimum of -100 (the lower the Energy... the higher the probability of having a short term injury in-game... and could also be used as a multiplier or addition to Player Efficiency Penalty from Stamina)

Every Daily Update... Players Recovery 35 Energy

TIE Spends .75 Energy Per Minute
Normal 1 Energy per Minute
Crunch 1.25 Energy per Minute

What I think of is that the system can to compute the Minutes played on games that is Game-shape dependents... between BBM and or BBB... and a multiplier that is based on the Enthusiasm used and the Offensive Pace of the Opponent and Pace Offensive own Team.

Slow .75 multiplier to Energy Used per minute
Normal 1 multiplier to Energy Used per minute
Fast 1.25 multiplier to Used Energy per minute

So Trainees Playing 45 Minutes on a Normal Pace on Both sides of the Court would spend a total of 45 Energy that day... but will Recover 32... in the long run... the Players Performance degrade for BBM/BBB... due to stacked Energy lost...


Again.. this is just an idea...

-edit-
the idea is just to use the System for BBM and BBB... but if used to all the games... It could be a Season-long Planning of Players' Energy...

there will also be games that will be scheduled just minutes if not hours in between... so probably Energy Recovery should also accour after the Game is Genarated.... Before the Live game Starts but invisble to the Managers like the Injury when playing a Match.

Last edited by Bro_Khen at 10/14/2021 9:15:58 PM

Putting a multiplier based on the chosen attack pace would also change the (already precarious) balance of tactics.
Although realistic, it would create profound disparities in the efficiency of the various options.

As the manager of a relatively new team, the debate on playing a 5-man rotation or an 8-man rotation is less relevant to me; instead, I am way more concerned about the impact of the current training system.

TL;DR: To release the trainees from being forced to play entire games, 1) relax the 45+ minutes constraints from 18 and 19-year-old players to all trainable players; and 2) give the managers to better control the game minutes among players. At the bare minimum, please allow the coaches to stick with their original rotations after the garbage time.

For conciseness, I will assume the team is on a single position training. Double position training should be more or less the same though.

For the current meta, I believe that most managers want to keep three trainees when we are running a single position training system. If the three trainees are equally important, the optimal solution is to make them all play 48 minutes.

In the past, most of us are content to have the three players each play on an entire game. But what if this is no longer possible?

I believe that the most natural solution is as below. Suppose the three players are A, B, and C.
Saturday: A as the starter, B as the bench.
Tuesday: B as the starter, C as the bench.
Thursday: C as the starter, A as the bench.

But, do they all get 48 minutes in this system? No. There are variations on the game minutes share between each game, even if you choose to "Strictly follow the depth chart". Despite the fact that it is impossible to have players sub in at the exact same time each game, the major reason is that in some games, subs played longer than usual, due to the garbage time.

Therefore, if the goal is to approximate the current meta while enforcing players not to play the entire games, we need a "slack factor", which means to guarantee full training effect even when the player did not play 48+.

Currently, there was an update that guarantees full training for players of 18 and 19 years old who play 45+ minutes. This is not enough for two reasons.

i) The training cycle is way longer than two years. Managers will train an HoF until he is 30 or so.
ii) The variation between game minutes share is way greater than 3 minutes. When choosing "Strictly follow depth chart", the starter/bench minutes split to about 36/12 in a close game, while in one-sided games it is about 24/24.

Therefore, I will personally suggest guaranteeing full training for players under 30 who played 42+ minutes.

In addition, we need to have a way to control the minute share in a lopsided game, so that a trainee played as a starter can stay longer on the court. I have seen many good suggestions in the forum, and here are some of them:

i) (Maybe simpler to implement) Add an option for substitutions, to allow the coach to "Strictly follow the depth chart, even after garbage time". This should largely stabilize the variation on game minutes and make things more predictable.
ii) (Maybe more advanced) Let the manager strictly decide how long each player should play. Players going after that preset threshold will be benched no matter what.


Hope we will reach a better consensus between training-oriented teams and strength-oriented teams.

Why are you so allergic to revert Marin's mistakes?

Even Marin himself acknowledges that they are mistakes!

In my opinion, an adjustment of the minutes of the starters with 8-9 stamina is needed. A world class player in his 44th minute is playing much worser than a world class back up, but the GE will always pick the starter. Right now, the best possible performance in a position is with a world class with 6 stamina in the starter position and a world class sub as a backup, wich works much better than a world class with 9 stamina with the same sub, just because of how the GE will distribute the minutes, which is a nonsense.

Even if a 9 stamina player performs decently right now, decreasing a little bit the performance curve of 8-9 stamina players and let the starters with high levels of stamina rest good minutes when they have a sub sounds like a good solution to me, you will see how the 7-8 player rotation teams will crush that 5 players teams with no backups. The entire injury issue sounds like a bad solution to a bad GE work, wich will mean that we will have both bad things at the same time if all this is implemented.

This game has very few bad thing, but they should be fixed in a way that this game deserves, hope you will have time to do it.

Regards.